[council] RE: point (2) of motion one on WHOIS passed on 20 July 2006

Bruce Tonkin Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
Thu Jul 27 02:03:10 UTC 2006

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

Bruce Tonkin

More information about the council mailing list