Proposed simplified WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006
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.
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.
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
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. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:16 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Proposed simplified WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006 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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure that Bruce's interpretation, or Council's interpretation really has much bearing on the policy issues. The question is whether or not specific uses of whois will be permitted by the relevant policy. Under current policy, a number of uses are permitted, and others (such as marketing) are not. I don't believe that we can adequately answer this question with any degree of certainty until such time that we have draft policy on the books to test these various use cases against. I think we need to refocus slightly on the development of this policy and away from this statement of purpose. If it turns out that the statement of purpose does not adequately support the new policy required by the community, we can easily revisit and refine the purpose. From my distant view over the last month, the attempt to understand the implications of the purpose of whois net of any substantive policy recommendations does not seem to have been a productive exercise. I may be wrong with this assessment, but I'm hard-pressed to find any serious progress on this particular point going as far back as Wellington - which might be indicative that we might possibly be trying to answer the wrong questions. Marilyn Cade 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.
Regards, -- -ross rader general manager, domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog? http://netidentity.weblog.info
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.
On 19 jul 2006, at 12.43, Marilyn Cade wrote:
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.
It was broader then my understanding and that is the reason I sent my note to this list quibbling with that as the interpretation of the agreed upon purpose. I took Bruce's message as an statement of what he, and perhaps his constituency, took to be the implications of the language. But I was concerned that this would become a blessed interpretation of the language, as comforting as it might be to some. Personally I think the words should stand as proposed and voted upon, as that is the nature of agreed language. Language is always interpretable and I believe one must use the agreed language without further official interpretation. Interpretation must be done as part in implementation and then must be done in connection with other agreed language such as mission and values, and under the constraint of law. a.
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. (3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments,
via the GAC, to work towards developing a broadly understandable definition of the minimum purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected and retained. The dialogue should seek to balance privacy and law enforcement concerns with ICANN's mission and core values, and must take into account the views of law enforcement agencies, data protection authorities, the policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws.
Note that one of the purposes would be for the public display of some or all of the data as per the recent definition of the purpose of WHOIS. Note that Registrars are required (clause 3.7.7.4) to provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating the purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant are intended, and the intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator).
Bruce Tonkin 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.
Regards, -- -ross rader general manager, domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog? http://netidentity.weblog.info
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
Hi, I think this is an improvement, as I thought the last paragraph was confusing and opened up more questions problems then it answered or resolved. I must, however, say, that I do not understand the point of even the simplified motion. Why do we want a motion to this effect? What will it improve? I am not arguing against it, I just can't really see the point of it. In terms of the first bullet, I think knowing the thoughts behind each of our votes can only serve to make things more confusing. We voted on the language of prop 1, which as is often (if not always) the case, had different nuances for each person. It will be very difficult for any of us to write something precise enough to explain those nuances without introducing new terms which we also would have different meanings for. If we have different meanings, then I am afraid it will actually serve to obviate the original vote and will serve as a way to work around that vote. Personally this is something I don't wish to see happen. The second point seems reasonable, but do we need a motion to ask the staff to summarize the content of the input we have received? If we do need such a motion to get an analysis of submitted documents, then, in my opinion, this point is worth voting on. On the third point, the members of the task force already represent constituencies, for the most part, and I am sure they are already taking input into account - difficult not to. Some may even be encouraging some of the input, which is also a good thing. And though I do think it is good to tell the TF to keep working without letting themselves be distracted by the sound and fury, but do we need a motion to do this? Also, should the TF wait for the staff summarization requested in bullet 2? Do we need to give them guidance on this point? On the fourth point, of course we will consider the TF's report and I guess will reconsider any of the definitions or recommendations, but again I don't see the point in saying something that is true whether it is said in a motion or left unsaid. As I say, I don't see the point behind this motion. thanks a. On 17 jul 2006, at 23.16, Bruce Tonkin 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.
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Marilyn Cade -
Mawaki Chango -
Ross Rader -
Thomas Keller