RE: [Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

What would it say if we ask to have it back?  
It would say that we've received important new information and that we need to 
re-think the implications of the policy.
It would reflect negatively on the TF if we did NOT recall it.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:38 AM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]


Forwarded from Ryan Lehning on behalf of Steve Metalitz.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:32 AM
To: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx; Jordyn A. Buchanan
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation


As one who was unable to join the call Tuesday I am somewhat mystified
by this posting. Who made the assertion about waiver of privacy rights?
If the question is sent back to us, would our terms of reference be
changed? Where would this issue fit into our other priorities?  And what
would it say about the TF if we asked to have back the only resolution
that has successsfully completed our part of the PDP?  Is it impossible
to bring anything to a conclusion in this TF?

(On a housekeeping note, maybe there is a problem with our list since I
did not receive Jordyn's original message nor any call-in notice for
Tuesday's call. Was one sent?)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Jordyn A. Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Whois TF mailing list <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Aug 09 18:39:23 2005
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Jordyn - thanks for prepping this.

I believe we should stick to option a) solely. I'm not aware of any
undertakings of this task force that would render a blanket waiver
"moot". We should essentially be requesting that the Council provide
this task force, or another GNSO body, with the opportunity to clarify
our current work prior to its consideration as consensus policy. As it
currently stands, the work has the potential to set a dangerous
precedent that we should avoid implementing - even the status quo is
preferable at this stage.

I'm sure with some new discussions that we can easily meet the
objectives of the user community regarding clear notice without
requiring them to give up additional rights.

On 09/08/2005 6:29 PM Jordyn A. Buchanan noted that;
> As we discussed on today's call, a concern has been raised that the 
> recommendation on Notice to registrants, currently before the Council,

> may be viewed as some kind of waiver of registrant's privacy  rights.
> This was not the intent of the recommendation, and not  something that
> we had originally considered within the task force.   As a result, we
> agreed on today's call that I would send a note to  Bruce and the 
> Council requesting further consideration of this issue.
> 
> Here's the request I propose to send.  Please let me know (quickly) if

> anyone believes this doesn't correctly reflect our agreement from the 
> call today:
> 
> Dear Bruce:
> 
> In discussions of the Whois TF this week, a concern was raised that 
> the current proposal relating to improving notice to registrants 
> regarding the use of their contact details in the Whois system may be 
> viewed as a waiver of registrants privacy rights.  It was not the 
> intent of the task force that the recommendation act as any sort of 
> waiver, but this was not an issue that we considered during the work
of the task force.
> We do believe that this is an important issue,  however, and believe 
> that it would be premature for the Council to  adopt the policy 
> recommendations without considering it.  As a  result, I am writing to

> request that the Council either:
> 
> a) Refer the recommendation back to the Task Force for further 
> consideration of this specific issue; alternatively, the Council may 
> want to consider this specific issue itself, or
> 
> b) Delay adoption of this recommendation until such time as the full 
> range of issues currently being considered by the task force have 
> resulted in a broader set of recommendations that may render this 
> issue moot.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jordyn A. Buchanan
> Chair, Whois TF


- --






                       -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: http://www.byte.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFC+TCb6sL06XjirooRAvxzAJ0ZnavnhWUA9pFufrMPwFyLxTymDgCeOZfI
WhHfjNTv4jKNd83uaOE/PnA=
=Z0mL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



-- 
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org