I'm home now, so my delay comes from the long flight :-).

I understand Mawaki's feelings completely. I don't like this resolution at all,

and I do think it (and its motivations) are not great. But I recognize the huge pressure of 3 constituencies (BC, IP, and ISP) that wanted to block all Whois work to date. While the Council is saying No, many members do not want to alienate these 3 powerful constituencies completely.

So might I suggest a combination of the approaches we are talking about:

1) Let's get the text of the resolution changed. There are several people on the list who see some distinct dangers in the existing wording (hard to say if they are intentional or unintentional), but if our Council members could work to make the wording clearer and not as dangerous (pursuant to these comments and your own), I would appreciate it.

2) Then if you want to take exception to one of the Resolutions and not submit a statement (as an individual Council member or as a joint stand of the NCUC), I would support that.

I would recommend that we draft 1 and 2 together -- so that the Task Force, the NCUC members and the Council members are working together and on the same page.

BTW, the news is good -- we have momentum on our side. This is a road bump -- there is progress in privacy and together it will continue....

Regards, Kathy

Personally, I'm attempted by civil disobedience except my
statement to the council in replying to Bruce's motion (see
first section of my reply*). I feel like people are being
requested to explain why they voted the way they did,
notwithstanding the careful wording of the motion, and this
because some don't like the result of the vote. This is not the
same as asking the TF and those who drafted the definitions to
explain what these mean, etc.

Other than that, I'm OK if the constituency decides to go for a
unique and common declaration.