I would like to see the first paragraph removed too. If we start going down this path we will have to justify every single decision we made and its meaning to each of us over and over again. Thats not the way policy making works. Best, tom Am 17.07.2006 schrieb Mawaki Chango:
It looks like we are getting there. There is also the para 1 that would better be removed, for reasons I've already expressed.
Mawaki
--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
Further to my previous motion, here is a simplified motion that is constrained to matters concerning the WHOIS service.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Proposed Simplified Motion on WHOIS
The GNSO Council notes that the current WHOIS definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.
In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps:
(1) Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning.
(2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments.
(3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided.
(4) The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable.
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w