Hello Bruce, Thanks for the clarification. That was the point I was trying to raise on the call (confusingly, I admit), so it's Ok to mention it, somehow, in the minutes. Please note, I was not making this point in an antagonistic spirit. As I said, my understanding was that the (1) & (2) were meant to walk togeter, and that's what I explained to my constituency members when they objected to the compilation completed by Maria that it accouts for only one side of the interpretations (I confirmed to them that there was nothing wrong with that because she has just done what she was instructed to do in this motion.) So what you are saying now is that we should have in that compilation, based on para. (2) of the motion, an outline of all the interpretations drawn from ALL the letters, inputs, comments, etc., regardless of their final position as to the two formulations??? Could you please check if we all are on the same page, Maria included, and if this is what has actually be done? Again, I'm making this point only for the sake of the clarity of the outcome of our decisions. In case, as I sometimes find myself, we need to respond to objections from our constituents or from any members of the Internet communities. Thanks, Mawaki --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

Hello Mawaki,

...

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.

Just to clarify - point (2) of motion one, is not intended to be restricted to only covering the interpretations of those that were against the definition.

I think the purpose of point (2) is to help us understand how diverse the interpretations of the definition are. It is not intended to focus on how many support each formulation - as that work has already been done in the WHOIS report. For example two people may agree on the interpretation of the definition, but one may be in favour and one may not be in favour of the definition.

For example, two people may believe that the definition means that the WHOIS service will no longer publish the home address of a registrant that is an individual rather than a company. One of the two people may think this is good from a privacy point of view, and the other person may think that this is bad from the point of view of enforcing intellectual property rights. The purpose of the motion is not to re-iterate the well understood objectives of the two people, but to understand if they have the same understanding of the meaning of the definition.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin