Council Members and All:
    I agree completely with Milton's Paragraph 3 suggestion.  My biggest fear comes from the loose language in the last proposed paragraph.  After Resolution 5, this unnumbered paragraph states: 
    "The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related 
    to the service that provides public access to some or all of the
    data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself."
 
I am very worried.  To me this line can be read to change our Task Force Terms of Reference -- the charter of the group.  For years we have dutifully done our job.  We defined the Purpose of Whois (Terms of Reference #2), and we are now looking at what data should be public (part 1 of TOR #3) and what data should be private (part 2 of TOR #3).
        TOR #(3) "Determine what data collected should be available
        for public access in the context of the purpose of WHOIS.
        Determine how to access data that is not available for public access."
 
Thus the Whois TF -- and our Purpose of Whois -- covers not only future public information, but also the future of the data currently public and soon (hopefully!) to be made private.  The use of this accumulated data of 63 million domain name registrants  is **specifically in the Whois Task Force charter for recommendation to the Council** and that upsets our IP, ISP and BC friends. 
 
Of course, Registrars and Registries can continue to collect and use this data for technical and business purposes, but the intent of the Council and Task Force was always to evaluate which data should be continue to public under the Purpose, and what access should be allowed to the data that is private.  We could not, for example, allow unlimited access to the newly private data to direct marketers -- that is completely contrary to why the data went private to begin with.  This newly private personal data **should have limitations to our new Purpose of Whois.** (That's also consistent with EU Data Protection law.  You cannot collect data for one purpose and use it for another.  Here, the data was always collected for a technical purpose, we have now made it explicit in writing.  You cannot say that just because certain of this data is made private, it is now available for completely unrelated purposes.)
 
So access to the newly-private data by others is **a key part of the Whois TF review process.**   (Privately, of course IPC, BC and ISP Constituencies would like to take this outside the scope of the Whois TF -- and that's exactly what we cannot allow to happen.)
 
I would recommend that we strongly go after this paragraph. Ways to do so:
1) Delete it -- it is only a "note" by the Council.  Since it is not a resolution or binding part of the text, and since it is very ambiguous, just delete it.
2) Amend it --  alas, I have no good amendment since the whole concept is flawed, but perhaps: 
    "The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related 
    to the [add:  Whois] [S]service [add:  and the data may continue to be
    collected by the Registrars and Registries for technical and business purposes]
    [strike: that provides public access to some or all of the data collected,
    and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself."]
 
Thanks so much of all the work ahead on this.  And thanks for including us on the discussions on Council....BTW, if they (other Council members) say I am misreading this, then asking them to clarify the text (in writing) to make sure my reading is not a possible one should get them to move a bit... :-)
 
Regards and thanks,
Kathy