Dear Glen, I would like to suggest the following changes and additions to the minutes, in connection with the discussion about Motion One. Under the "Discussion of the motion..." in the minutes, the current first bullet to be replaced by: - the assertion that the voted definition of the WHOIS purpose is that of the WHOIS service is consistent with the WHOIS Task Force Terms of Reference that request the definition of the purpose of WHOIS service. I made further comments during the meeting I'd like to appear in the minutes; they are meant as follows (not sure, though, how you may go about the final quote.) * After speaking against the initial motion proposed in Marrakesh, I am comfortable with the latest change that does not request, but give the opportunity to the council members to explain their vote, if they so wish. I note, however, that the new version of the numbered paragraph (1) of the Motion One may introduce a non desirable imbalance with the numbered paragraph (2), assuming that they are coupled in the initial design of the motion, so that those who voted for the current definition explain their rationale while the staff will take care of compiling and presenting the rationale of those who oppose that definition. In the current version of the motion, only those of the relevant council members who are willing to do so may provide an explanation of their vote for the current definition. With the likelihood that they may be few, the request to the staff to compile the opposing views may become less relevant. * Regarding the reference to the Board practice, especially for the dot COM agreement, as a base to request Council members to explain their vote or decision: I noted that, without prejudice of how the Board conducts its consultations and deliberations prior to its final decisions, the Council had had lengthy debates and exchange of arguments before the WHOIS definition vote, which is documented on a public mailing list. In fact, most of the letters the Council has received were not asking for an explanation of the vote, but contending that the Council voted for the wrong definition, and therefore, should change its vote. I think any further explanation as a response to that contention is useless for that very reason, which, I believe, is related to what the Council Chair, Bruce Tonkin, called "the end objectives of those that support the two formulations," (in his email to the Council list, dated July 19 or 20, with subject 'Regarding Powerpoint presentation in the GNSO/GAC workshop on Monday 26 June 2006'.) §§§§§§ Quote of the email message from Bruce Tonkin (sent July 19 or 20) Subject: Regarding Powerpoint presentation in the GNSO/GAC workshop on Monday 26 June 2006 "It seems to me that the debate is not really about the formulations - which are really almost the same purely from a language point of view, but the concern is about the end objectives of those that support the two formulations. I think there is far more variation in the end objectives of the various constituencies, than there is variation in the two formulations. [...] Rather than waste further time on debating the formulations, it seems to me personally that we probably need to move on and discuss a possible reference implementation (e.g OPAC) that may not be quite as bad or good as some had hoped, but it might actually improve the effectiveness of the WHOIS service for us all. I am not sure yet what getting those who voted in support of formulation 1 to state their reasons why they supported formulation 1 will achieve, but I am happy to try it and see what we learn." §§§§§§ I hope this is clear. Thank you very much. Mawaki --- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 20 July 2006.