[gnso-dow123] Citation in IPC background paper

["Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>]

David, 
 
I understand that on last Tuesday's Whois Task Force call you pointed
out an error in a citation in the IPC background paper regarding the
purposes of Whois.  I appreciate your pointing out the new URL for the
Art. 29 working party paper cited in our background report at footnote
15.  Our footnote linked to a URL at the European Commission internal
market directorate, where data protection activities were formerly
housed.  (This was the URL given numerous times in the appendix to the
2004 TF2 report prepared by Kathy Kleiman.)  As you probably know, in a
recent bureaucratic re-shuffle, these activities were transferred to the
Justice and Home affairs directorate.  While the old URL for the data
protection unit remained active until sometime within the last month or
so, it has since been shut down, and the paper can now best be accessed
through the URL you provided and which is reflected in the draft
minutes.  Evidently we failed to check to see if the page accessed
during the drafting of the background paper was still active at the
moment ithe paper was submitted (actually, it may have still been, but
clearly is no longer).  In any case, we will circulate an erratum to
reflect this bureaucratic shift within the Commission and the resulting
change in URL. 
 
Steve Metalitz

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:31 PM
To: Ross Rader
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Secretariat
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice
recommendation]



 

I have reviewed the minutes but not the recording.  I understand the
question, but it may be that we disagree that the only options are to
proceed full steam ahead or bring the recommendation to a halt.  

 

The substance of my point is that reversal of notice provisions which
are currently in the agreement was not part of the task force terms of
reference.  Thus, I'm uncomfortable with the approach of making a
request to put this issue before the task force, given the work load we
already have tasked to us.  

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:18 PM
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

 

On 16/08/2005 11:57 AM Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie) noted that;

> 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.  

 

I don't think anyone is looking for a reversal of these recommendations

- - at least I'm not. I'm simply requesting, based on comments made by

members of your constituency and others, that the GNSO seek to

understand the implications of its actions prior to implementation.

 

I'm not sure if you have reviewed the recording or transcripts of our

call or not, but there is no hidden agenda here. I have questions and

I'm seeking answers. Until we have those answers, I don't think it's

responsible for us to proceed full steam ahead.

- --

 

 

 

 

 

 

                      -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)

 

iD8DBQFDAhG+6sL06XjirooRAkoEAJ9dPGZTDLkO69ro/QuUtJItqYydWACgiI8P

2lLOtPuGyvlM9f3oVpPCwag=

=eZTz

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----