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

["Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Colleagues-
Before getting into the substance of the issue here, I have a procedural
problem.  Following the chain of emails, I have noticed a few instances
where people are referring to "agreements" made on Tuesday's call.  I
would suggest that unless the full task force membership is on a call
and truly "agrees" to a certain decision, it is inappropriate to quickly
move toward a position that is coming as a complete surprise to some
members. I know that in the interest of time, decisions do get made on
calls, and not everyone can always be present to participate.  That is
fine. However, something as important as tabling or taking back a
recommendation that has already been voted through in the task force,
should require more than one call, should be noticed well in advance so
that all members have opportunity for input and should be fully
explained because it is leaving at least one of us (me) completely
baffled. 

Getting to what I believe the substantive issue is-
I don't see how highlighting terms that are already in existence can be
a waiver.  If the issue is that registrants do not have opportunity to
negotiate the terms, our recommendation does not negatively impact that.
I can't remember the last time I negotiated my credit card terms, my
drivers' license terms or my ISP terms of use, for that matter.
However, bringing increased attention to a particular provision has no
impact on that.  

What it does impact would be a registrant's argument that he was not
made aware of how his information would be used. Are we saying that it
would be a good thing to keep such confusion and ambiguity in the
agreements?   Are we saying that better clarity is equivalent to a
waiver?  (if so, in what jurisdiction would that be??)  

My colleague, Greg Ruth, who was on the call indicated to me that task
force members in favor of taking back the recommendation were invoking
advice they'd received from legal experts.  I guess I need to hear from
such experts b/c I've read through all the discussion and still don't
get it.  

To the extent that we are going back to Council to revise any
recommendations that required a vote, it is the ISPCP position that such
revisions must receive the same discussion and full membership vote.  

Regards,
Maggie


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:19 AM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice
recommendation]

NCUC originally supported the Notice Recommendation and we would
absolutely support reconsideration. 

Forwarded from Steve Metalitz who is unable to post while on vacation.
>(2) Since the constituency Ross and Paul represent voted against the
>recommendation origiinally, what is the basis for reconsideration?
>Normally such a motion could only be brought by someone who had voted
>yes originally


Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org