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

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

I would say that any time an issue is raised after a final
recommendation that attempts to reverse a task force proposal, without
advance notice, without adequate opportunity for input by the
constituencies, and legal opinions of individuals who are not on the
task force and who did not comment on the recommendation are invoked as
a basis for reversal, there is bound to be confusion.  So yes, I guess
we can agree there is some confusion here.  



-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:07 AM
To: Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice
recommendation]

-----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-----