[council] Proposed simplified WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Tue Jul 18 20:16:53 UTC 2006


I think this is an improvement, as I thought the last paragraph was  
confusing and opened up more questions problems then it answered or  

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.



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.

More information about the council mailing list