Thnaks Marilyn for this summary and further clarification. Indeed, I was aware of Bruce's attempts to interpret and clarify the possible consequences of the Council's voted WHOIS purpose definition. I read Bruce's posting here to that end a little while before Marrakesh, and followed the presentations in Marrakesh, and particularly the powerpoint you're referring to. Nobody's interpretation, not even the Chair's (and I think Bruce would agree), commits the Council, the TF, or the future of this PDP. We have been facing a situation where stakeholders were sending letters pressing the GNSO Council to change their vote, that the council made a wrong decision (they are not even asking for more explanation, but precisely for a cancellation of the Council's vote, so that their preferred definition be put in place instead - which for me is a surrealistic demand.) One thing at least is interesting though, because it allows some discussion, that is, they have provided a few arguments to justify their demand. So, as far as my understanding goes, what Bruce has tried to do in response to those pressures and arguments was to explain that the simple adoption of that definition for the WHOIS purpose does not in itself imply all the disastroous consequences that are argued by those stakeholders (anti-council vote) - e.g., that such definition in itself does not state, neither does it allow to conclude, that the same data will no longer be collected, that law enforcement agencies, property rights legal entities, etc. would not have acces to it, etc. Bruce was explaining that after the vote of the purpose definition for WHOIS, there are subsequent terms of reference for the TF, whereby issues such as the data to be collected, who may have access and under what conditions, etc. will be addressed. I understand that the purpose of the WHOIS is what it has been _designed_ for (my understanding), and in Bruce's thinking, it is not necessary what the data is used, or may be used, for; I guess that's why he started introducing that shift between the purpose of the Whois data and the purpose of the Whois service, i.e. use of the data, etc. (personally, I'm still cautious about this, but I at least can understand his rationale.) To conclude, Marilyn, I don't think the Council even need to make a decision whether we agree or not on Bruce's response to the community (because in fact, this is hardly an interpretation of the voted definition), i.e. it is a fact that all the desastrous consequences that are argued in the letters from the contenders of the Council vote are not rendered inevitable by the simple result of our vote; and that those arguments are ill-timed at least because those issues are still to be addressed by the TF. So in the best interest of all of us, the TF should just continue its work, and we may not even need a motion, as Avri put it in question. But now that we have talked at lenghts of this motion, we may finally need one to explain why we don't need one ;-) Best regards, Mawaki --- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Mawaki.
Sorry, didn't mean to be confusing. I appreciate your asking.
Here's my understanding of the situation regarding the 'interpretation' via PowerPoint. There was a PowerPoint created by Bruce, in an effort to help to inform the discussion with the GAC/Council, that further explained some key points and also provided an interpretation that all the 'functions' presently supported by the uses of WHOIS are possible under Formulation 1.
The Council earlier voted to support Formulation 1, which I take to be a too narrow formulation, and I voted against that Formulation.
Given the vote of Council, the TF was given back Formulation 1. Since that time, there has been discussion, and debate about what Formulation 1 means, and what Formulation 2 means.
Bruce, acting as chair, has attempted to provide guidance and improve the understanding of the Council on what was meant -- e.g. the interpretation of what Formulation 1. He provided a PowerPoint to the joint Council and GAC meeting that essentially says that under Formulation 1, that the functions that my constituency (BC) believe are necessary, are supportable under Formulation 1.
That to me is a 'interpretation' of Formulation 1.
My question is : Is Bruce's interpretation, now in the said PowerPoint the agreed position of the Council?
You can imagine that given my Constituency's interests, views, and needs, that we want and support a broader interpretation. However, I respect that it is important to have agreement with other Councilors and achieve as much agreement on what is meant and supporter, or not, as possible.
For example, members of the GAC saw the PowerPoint and may view the interpretation, since it had the chair's name and title on it, as Council perspective.
Again, I am in support of a broader interpretation. However, respecting that others are not/may not be, I seek to avoid disappointment and disharmony by misunderstandings.
"we" may be in disagreement -- but it is best if "we" know what we disagree about, and agree about. :-)
Bruce's invitation to those to who supported Formulation 1 may be one way to allow people to be clearer about whether they supported the broader interpretation.
What is clear to me is that we have more work to do at Council, and after reading the second motion that Bruce has drafted, with staff input/Assistant GC input, I am inclined to think that does a good job of capturing the work needed, including the consultation and interaction needed with all the Advisory Committees.
I still think we need to address and recognize the need also to interact with the other SOs on this topic.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:16 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed simplified WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006
Marilyn, thanks God you are fine; I would appreciate if you could answer my question to you below. With anticipation, thanks.
Mawaki
--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@yahoo.com> wrote:
Marilyn,
what do you mean by this: "On the discussion of the interpretation of Formulation 1, I am not convinced that the Council has discussed and accepted the broader definition." Is it that Bruce's (so far tentative) interpretation you're calling "broader definition," or do you mean the Council have to discuss again before accepting the result of the vote (which was not for the broader definition; but on the other hand you can't be talking about accepting the rejected formulation, so I'm confused)? Please clarify.
Mawaki
--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bruce,
Thanks for another round at simplifying the motion. However, this version loses the important commitment to engage in dialogue with the GAC and SSAC. I prefer to have the motion include the reference to the work of the GAC and the Council on examining and discussing the purpose and uses of WHOIS. So, I'd prefer to see that segment put back into the motion.
The motion below asks some of the Councilors to state what they think the formulation 1 means and why they supported it. I am not inclined to oppose that segment of the motion, but ask, for clarification: What do we intend, as Council, to do with this new information from Councilors? How will it be used? Is it additional information to inform Council's discussions, or is it to assist the TF in improving clarity of where the Councilors views are?
On a broader note, the interpretation of Formulation 1 that you presented to the joint GAC/Council meeting on Monday that I saw in the PowerPoint later, appears to address some of the concerns of the BC, if indeed, Formulation 1 is inclusive of the needs that we see for public access to the data to support the concerns and needs of ISPs, business users, trademark interests, consumer protection and law enforcement.
Since it was presented to the GAC, and is a part of the documentation of that joint meeting, I'd like to clarify, within Council, what its status, if any, is. And to establish if we have broad Council acceptance of that interpretation. I think that is important to assist both Council and the TF.
To recap:
On the revised motion, I prefer to see the reference to the joint GAC/Council work included.
On the discussion of the interpretation of Formulation 1, I am not convinced that the Council has discussed and accepted the broader definition. I think we need to know where we are.