Re: [gnso-dow123] Edits to Introduction & Background

[KathrynKL@xxxxxxx]

Maggie:
Thanks for pointing this out.  The Editor did not highlight the full scope of 
the changes.  Because Task 5 was so important, I want to move its discussion 
to the prior paragraph.   Also, before we cite the full text of #5 TOR, I 
thought (for ease of reading,) we should summarize its upfront and then list 
the 
TOR text.  So I moved the text and spirit of the deleted line up a few 
sentences.

Feel free to edit, but here is how I would recommend that the paragraphs 
read: 

"On February 17, 2005, the WHOIS task forceâs 1, 2 and 3 were combined into a 
single, combinedWHOIS Task Force. (
http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-17feb05.shtml) The combined 
WHOIS task force was chartered by the GNSO 
Council with terms of reference and set of tasks on 2nd June 2005 that required 
it to conclude its work on the âconflictsâ policy recommendation:
(5) Determine how to resolve differences between a Registered Name Holder's, 
gTLD Registrar's, or gTLD Registry's obligation to abide by all applicable 
laws and governmental regulations that relate to the [no line break]
WHOIS service, as well as the obligation to abide by the terms of the 
agreements with ICANN that relate to the WHOIS service. [Note this task refers 
to the 
current work in the WHOIS task force called 'Recommendation 2', A Procedure 
for conflicts, when there are conflicts between a registrar's of registry's 
legal obligations under local privacy laws and their contractual obligations to 
ICANN.]â http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html.";

[new paragraph] Accordingly, ÂTask force members continued to develop the 
recommendation through June 2005. The task force voted on May 24, 2005 to 
divide 
its work into a recommendation for consensus policy accompanied by advice for 
a procedure.  Constituency statements on the recommendation were solicited by 
21 July 2005.

OK?
Regards,
Kathy



> 
> 
> Kathy-
> 
>  One question-near the very end of the intro, why are you proposing that the 
> sentence re Task 5 be deleted?
> 
> 
>