RE: [gnso-dow123] FOR REVIEW: Draft Preliminary Task ForceReport on the Purpose of Whois]

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

This is a reasonable suggestion. In principle, I would support extracting the 
TOR#2 comments. However, if it causes further delay, it may be better to leave 
it as it is. 

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

>>> "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 01/08/06 2:47 PM >>>
One further question:  since what we are seeking comment on (the two
formulations) is responsive to TOR #1, not #2, is it really necessary to
include the constituency statements on TOR#2?  If we were to drop them,
the preliminary report would be quite a bit shorter and (I suggest) more
likely to be read. 
 
Steve 
 
 
 
 
________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 12:08 PM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Secretariat
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] FOR REVIEW: Draft Preliminary Task
ForceReport on the Purpose of Whois]



 

 

Dear TF members, I'll clarify the purpose of providing my suggested
edits. The reason to provide the staff draft to the TF is to allow
comments and suggested edits from the TF members to help to ensure a
thorough document and support the work that the staff has done in
drafting. 

 

I've taken note of Milton's objections to all of my comments. However, I
note that the BC, and I would suspect, but leave to the other
constituencies to comment, believes that the definition that we support
is consistent with the core values and mission of ICANN, and we want to
see that reflected in the report. Otherwise, the report is not accurate
in that particular area. 

 

The report needs to be easy to follow, for the stakeholder community.
That was the purpose of several of my suggestions; and I welcome the
ICANN staff providing this call to the TF members for suggested
improvements and edits. 

 

Marilyn 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:56 PM
To: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] FOR REVIEW: Draft Preliminary Task
ForceReport on the Purpose of Whois]

 

Jordyn

I do have some feedback. I'd oppose all the changes proposed by Marilyn.
I am not trying to be contentious, I am simply being realistic about
what adds value and what our time constraints are.

 

Almost all of the changes proposed by Marilyn are nonessential,
editorial matters. The report works fine as it is. It  might be nice to
fine tune language and add things here and there but we are way beyond
that point, in terms of our time commitments. The added value of
tweaking language simply doesn't merit the additional work. 

 

A few of the changes proposed by Marilyn alter meaning in a way that is
objectionable to us, and I suspect to other constituencies as well. This
is the danger we get into when modifying the report. 

 

I strongly suggest that we accept Maria's report text (with the missing
constituency statement added) and leave it at that. 

 

>>> Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 1/6/2006 12:11 PM >>>

Hi Marilyn:

 

Thanks for this feedback.  The summary of the formulations and the
reasons

for their support is based on the comments provided in Vancouver.  The
only

real change is that instead of summarizing the Core Values cited in
support

of Formulation 1, as I did in Vancouver, the entire text of each Core
Value

is listed.  Since specific Core Values were referenced, I thought this
would

be the most helpful in allowing a reader not familiar with the ICANN
bylaws

to assess the relationship between the Formulation and the Core Values.

 

I agree we should try to capture the comments from Vancouver.  I'll
request

that Maria reviews the transcript and try to incorporate a brief summary
of

any comments.

 

If anyone has any other feedback, now is the time to provide it.  I'd
like

to wrap up any changes and get the report ready for posting by a week
from

today.

 

Jordyn

 

On 1/2/06 7:02 PM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

> Dear Maria.

> 

> Thanks for this work so close to Christmas! I have provided some
comments

> that address some areas. First, there should be consistency on  in the

> treatment of Task Force throughout the document. I started changing to
Task

> Force from "task force", but decided to leave that to you when you do
a

> global edit. :-) 

> 

> I have also provided some substantive remarks. I provided edits to the

> section that discusses the views of the three constituencies that
support

> formulation two. I know that the BC believes that the definition,
which I

> provided edits to, is fully consistent with the core values and
mission of

> ICANN. I didn't add in specific core values, but it might be useful to
do

> that, if you are going to include those for the other formulation. On
the

> other hand, since that may confuse the reader, perhaps it is better to

> simply omit specific core values and just rely on a reference to the
views

> of the constituencies that they believe that the definitions are
consistent.

> 

> 

> I note that there is no mention of the issues of consumer protection,
which

> have come up in the discussions.

> 

> The report in fact, does seem to overlook some of the discussions and
topics

> that have been undertaken by the TF. I added in a few of those.

> 

> The report is read by those not close to the work of the TF/Council as
the

> explanation of what "we" have been doing, and I hope it can be
expanded a

> bit to be more informative.

> 

> I have always found that the reports need to be sufficient to
"inform", so

> that we are not merely appearing to take a "vote" among the community.
That

> approach won't inform policy development.

> 

> I have another question for you -- there were some comments during the

> public forum itself, which I am not sure how we are capturing?

> 

> And, finally, we need to have a discussion within the Council itself
on how

> we are going to provide a mechanism for discussion with the GAC on
these

> issues, and others related to policy.

> 

> I suggest that the WHOIS TF chair send a request to Council asking for

> guidance on how to undertake that consultation. At Council level, we
will

> need to set some guidelines for the Council's interactions with GAC on

> several policy issues, this among them.

> 

> Of course, the GAC has been aware of the WHOIS TF work already, so
that

> means we are "ahead of the game", so to speak.

> 

> Thanks again for all your work on this. I look forward to seeing
comments

> from other TF members.

> 

> Now, finally, Happy New Year! I think this is the first time I am
writing to

> many of you, so even if a day late, still the wish is quite sincere!

> 

> Marilyn 

>  

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On

> Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 12:36 PM

> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

> Subject: [gnso-dow123] FOR REVIEW: Draft Preliminary Task Force Report
on

> the Purpose of Whois]

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Dear all,

> 

> Following the input of the task force chair, Jordyn Buchanan, I am

> circulating for your review the draft Preliminary Task Force Report on

> the Purpose of Whois.

> 

> Once it has been reviewed/revised by the task force, the report will
be

> posted for public comments.  Given the holidays, may I suggest that
you

> provide your comments on the report by the 12th of January, 2006?

> 

> All the best, Maria

>