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

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with Ross Rader's comments.
David Maher

At 08:59 AM 1/9/2006, Ross Rader wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >