On 17 Jul 2006 at 19:20, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Hate to sound impatient, but please check what ICANN has actually posted
> before complaining about it. 
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/correspondence.html 

Unfortunatly (for me) Milton is right once more. In the resolution it 
says that
"The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other" [!!] 
"interpretations of the definition"

It just so happened that all *other* definitions proposed were about 
"whois use for legal matters" aka formulation 1. Those not included only 
defended the standard technical definition (2), and did not re-define it, 
so there was no reason to include it.

My first (not so very surprising) misinterpretation was that the table 
was supposed to give a complete overview different definitions for whois 
on the basis of the comments recieved. I got it wrong and Maria Farrell 
only did ICANN staff was asked to do. Let's just hope that other council 
members do not make my mistake and read the other input, too.
 
Sorry for the confusion -- never trust your prejudices. 
	--iliya
(objectivity does make politics more difficult, though)