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

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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

My comment was not an accusation, but simply another example of the
confusion that exists as a result of the various interpretations of the
recommendations. The recommendations may or may not constitute a waiver
- - but somewhere along the line, the GNSO needs to figure out what the
recommendations do mean. Implementing policy without a conscious and
explicit recognition of its effects isn't useful or wise.

On 16/08/2005 10:43 AM Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie) noted that;
> Ross-
> I was not able to be on this call, so it's hard for me to "forget"
> something I was not aware of, even after reading the minutes.  However,
> I'll accept your statement as fact.  Let us also remember that a waiver,
> in the context of contractual rights, has very specific legal meanings
> and consequences.  
> 
> I think, in deference to the different kinds of experts we have on the
> task force, its inappropriate and incredibly unfair to hold a comment
> made by my colleague as being the legal position of our constituency.  
> 
> Within the ISPCP, as I'm sure with other constituencies, we value and
> enjoy the natural synergies that go along with having the expertise of
> folks with technical, policy, legal and other backgrounds.  
> 
> If you need clarification regarding a position with legal consequences
> on behalf the ISPCPs, please feel free to pose a question and we'll be
> happy to respond. If you're comment is intended as an indication of a
> hidden agenda or legal position of our constituency, let us be clear
> that this is in fact inaccurate and unfounded. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Maggie
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:30 AM
> To: Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
> Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice
> recommendation]
> 
> 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

- --






                      -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)

iD8DBQFDAgD16sL06XjirooRAvaXAJ4hVS+yJ5VAJDV16nwCwkFcS9m+ZgCfYKJ8
j38yuuEhe6oOxjuUihcZ79k=
=1ZVv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----