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

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Let's also not forget that the ISPCP explicitly referred to these
recommendations as a waiver during the call in question.



On 11/08/2005 1:02 PM Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie) noted that;
> 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
> 
> 


- --
- --
Regards,



                       -rwr








                "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument,
                 every utensil, every article designed for use, of each
                 and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings."
                        - Robert Collier


Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFDAepO6sL06XjirooRAgvZAJwKIFq06GBV6R1X4DHgJWn3ofs55QCcCrSV
7hGzTXrc61nM1cFsZGFD/84=
=uv61
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----