Totally agree! --- Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
I think it would be politically useful if this motion contained a reference to the other motion (formerly clause 3) that you removed from this for scope purposes. It need only be referential and something along the lines of "The GNSO Council will undertake the implementation of an additional work plan designed to better understand the needs of governments, via the GAC, related to the development of an understandable definition of the minimum purposes...etc.."
The reason for this would be to ensure that our intent regarding these initiatives remains very clear: i.e. that we are still committed to working to understand the broad range of issues, resolving outstanding existing Whois policy questions, etc. regardless of what definition of scope they fall under. Bootstrapping this work inside this motion will help those following along from home better understand our work by providing clear line of sight to the additional work items this ongoing discussion has spawned. My fear is that simply dropping this language entirely without explanation may be unduly confusing for anyone but the insiders. Any steps we can take to share a clear plan forward with our stakeholders and other concerned and interested parties will definitely make our job easier in the coming months.
Regards,
--
-ross rader general manager, domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet
Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog? http://netidentity.weblog.info