Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]
- To: "Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:29:50 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
> 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
> 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.
> -----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
> 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
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
"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)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----