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

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In principle, this is fine, except that on a practical basis, we've 
spent a lot of time getting the document this far already. My preference 
would simply be to close this off without much further in the way of 
drastic edits. I personally don't want to have to re-review my 
constituencies submission to make sure that it still makes sense post-edit.

Milton Mueller wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>