Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]
Hi Maggie: Other than the vote required as part of the PDP, the method for making decisions within a Task Force are not defined in the Bylaws, so procedural issues are largely left up to our best judgement. As I hope everyone realizes, in most circumstances, I try to gain consensus of all or very nearly all participants in the task force, but on occasion it is also necessary to conduct some sort of vote to resolve an issue. In general, I would consider any issue that appears on the agenda of a Task Force call to be the reasonable subject for some sort of vote to help shape the direction of our work, unless participation on a particular call was exceedingly low for some reason. This is not directly relevant to the issue at hand, because we didn't conduct a vote but I'll leave it there as a general statement of principle. This particular item was odd in two respects: first, it was not anticipated as an agenda item for the call, and (but?) second, it was necessary to discuss the item because it was the last call we would have before the Council is scheduled to vote on the proposal in question. As a result, those of us on the call had to struggle to deal with the issue in a reasonable manner during the limited time we had available. We did have representatives from each of the constituencies on the call, and while Niklas from the IPC and David Farris from the BC both expressed some reservations, I don't believe either requested that I not proceed with sending a communication to the Council on this topic. I do agree that it came as a surprise to hear that the current proposal might serve as some sort of waiver, and I don't believe that there is widespread agreement that it actually does so. However, this is not an issue that we looked at in our initial discussions, and it does seem like an important topic to investigate further. As you suggest, before making a decision, it would be important to get a better sense of the legal opinions on the subject--on the call Marilyn suggested that we might seek some further legal feedback on the topic. However, conducting that inquiry is useless if the Council has already acted on the proposal. This is why it was deemed to be useful to request that the Council defers action on the proposal. In the interest of addressing the various concerns raised on the mailing list, I would propose the following modified version of my original communication. We do need to send this out soon: 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. There is no agreement in the task force that the current policy recommendations would constitute a waiver, however a number of the members of the task force do believe that this is an important issue and believe that it would be premature for the Council to adopt the policy recommendations without considering it. Although the Task Force did not have time to form an official position on this issue, in light of those concerns, 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 On Aug 11, 2005, at 1:02 PM, Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie) wrote: Dear Colleagues-
|