Hi Wendy, Although I am a member of the NCUC, I do not endorse this motion. My reasons are as follows: It is important to recognize that all points of view and their respective justifications should make their way upward to the Board for their consideration, and that includes the minority recommendations contained within the report. When we act to deal with implementation issues and only concern ourselves with one set of policy recommendations (the narrow majority view) we do a disservice to the Board that is obligated to look at the whole picture and that must select a way forward that best serves the interests of the Corporation. The Board is under no obligation to accept a majority solution -- they are at liberty to pick and choose from among competing proposals. Speaking as someone that contributed a written proposal to the TF (The Natural Persons Proposal) who is fully aware of the fact that TF members didn't properly review either the public comments or the other proposals tendered (including the one that you co-authored with Avri Doria and Robin Gross), I see a need for a more expansive effort that would examine implementation considerations for all the proposals put forth. My two cents, Danny --- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Do ALAC (and/or participating ALSs) endorse this NCUC motion? I do, and it would be great to convey that support via Alan to the Council when it votes on the Terms of Reference tomorrow. (All we can do, since we don't have votes, is to endorse others' positions or to get voting members to endorse ours...)
--Wendy
Danny Younger wrote:
To those following the WHOIS Policy debate, the NCUC has amended its recent motion:
NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused.
The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...).
This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective.
NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows:
"The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommended OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES."
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html