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-----