I recommend that the TF continue its work. I agree that we haven't had a chance [I wasn't here Monday and Tuesday] to have the total immersion either or to fully consider the latest input /clarification of the registrar statement. Perhaps I've gotten my feet wet, however. :-) I was here for the WHOIS TF meeting on Sunday. However, the Council should take up the discussion of purpose at the Council level, with participation and advice of the GAC Sub Committee; representatives from the ccNSO, the ASO, the chair of the SSAC, and ensure input from the community during this discussion. I think Council must recognize and be sensitive to the political realities of the interests of the GAC that the purpose definition must include dialogue, advice and interaction with governments; it is the view of many if not all governmental representatives that I've spoken to that the purpose of WHOIS is a "public policy" issue. This would create a parallel track to some degree, hopefully briefly. I understand that. However, I am sensitive to the concerns expressed both within ICANN, and outside of ICANN, by governments, that when public policy issues are discussed, there must be interaction and advice of governments. In this case, the "governments" are the GAC, and specifically the GAC subcommittee of relevance. I support establishing that interaction. As we all understand in policy making "facts are our friends" in policy development; "making policy is like making sausage", and policy making takes time. Some may think that policy should be rushed. We should learn lessons for how related "standards" and policy is made elsewhere, including in the IETF. NOT stopping our work, nor the work of the TF, but being responsible and recognizing the need to discuss NOW the purpose for which the data is collected. At the Council. While the TF does relevant work, taking into account the inputs that have been recently received. I think there is a misunderstanding about the risks here. I spoke to my views on that related to how some of the confusion and breakdown took place on the dialogue of the issues related to the decision on .XXX. Some believe that the GNSO TF can design an "engineering" model, publish it, send it to the Board, there is a strong risk that they reject it due to advice from the GAC that we have not accepted their request to interact with us on the purpose for which the data is collected, as well as what should be displayed and to whom. Then, let's say that we find that the policy recommendation is rejected, we have to go back to the drawing board--and to those who are frustrated about work load, how long policy development takes, I would note that this would only elongate the process even more... and frustrate even more. Best regards, Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:22 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Options for WHOIS purpose Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Lets discuss this further in the Council meeting tomorrow.
In any case, I recommend that the task force continue its current work program. Any work on purpose should be done at the Council level.
It sounds like much discussion and progress has been made on Whois this week. This is a good thing. However, I would ask that we don't seek to actually take a decision on this matter tomorrow. Those that are physically participating in the meeting have had the benefit of a very immersive experience in which they have been able to take in a lot of data on a very near full-time basis. Those of us not attending the meeting have not had this same luxury. I would like to be able to participate in taking this decision from an informed basis, but have not yet had a chance to wade through the relevant recordings, transcripts and submissions. Discussion of this proposal is definitely warranted, but I don't think I could adequately represent the needs of my constituency, in terms of making a decision, based on what I know now. I would appreciate the opportunity to consider more of these inputs before I actually voted on anything this important during a meeting that will be held in just over 12 hours time. Thanks in advance for your consideration. -ross