RE: [nc-transfer] FW: [GTLD-RC] Revised DRAFT NC resolution re WHOIS TF report
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] FW: [GTLD-RC] Revised DRAFT NC resolution re WHOIS TF report
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:36:38 -0500
- Sender: email@example.com
- Thread-Index: AcKiDNAF7fqjN9lgQcO/B/MAOvGAOgAACLUg
- Thread-Topic: [nc-transfer] FW: [GTLD-RC] Revised DRAFT NC resolution re WHOIS TF report
I should clarify further. The WHOIS TF recommends limited policy changes for now on WHOIS, mostly enforcement; plus some RAA changes and changes in marketing uses of WHOIS data... and a much elongated work programme to be fulfilled by them or a similar body. THAT is very different than this TF. Let's keep the two respectfully separate.
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:21 PM
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] FW: [GTLD-RC] Revised DRAFT NC resolution re
WHOIS TF report
> The following was a note posted by one of the gTLD Registry
> Constituency reps to the Whois Task Force and I believe the
> same comments are similarly applicable to our task force.
Request to all/Point of order...
If your constituency or its members wish to comment on the Transfers TF
efforts/work/process etc., I'd like to respectfully request that they do
Transfers and Whois are completely separate issues and we do no one a
service by treating them as one issue. I realize that no one is doing
this intentionally, but there is a dangerous perception emerging
nonetheless. The DNSO must devote time and attention to solving the
specific issues raised by both reports - it is likely that separate
solutions are in order. Creating the perception that the issues are "the
same" will only serve to prolong the resolution of both.
"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
- Steven Wright
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: