Re: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

At 01:40 PM 11/22/2002 +0000, Karen Elizaga wrote:
>Thanks, everyone, for your comments.  Again, I have tried to incorporate 
>all comments as best I could.
>
>In response to some of the comments made yesterday, I just wanted to 
>respond as follows:
>
>1.      Re: Kristy's opt-in concern:  I agree that the survey results 
>showed that opt-in was largely supported by the respondents, and it would 
>be my preference to incorporate such a structure into our 
>recommendation.  However, a point was made early on that opt-out was 
>probably overlooked as a feasible structure as a result of visceral and 
>adverse reactions to marketing where NEITHER opt out or opt in have been 
>made available.  The interim report, as published, contains this language 
>and therefore has been carried through in this draft - see 3.3.6.3 
>discussion (the new bullet point simply makes the same point for further 
>recommendations).  If we want to change our recommendation to advocate 
>opt-in, then we should discuss.

Thank you,

I just want us to be clear that we do not have a consensus agreement for 
either.

Both need to be evaluated.

More support was received for opt-in.

I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone overlooked opt-out as an option.  That needs to be 
changed to state some of the TF or a majority of the TF; but certainly not all.

(Supporting Opt-Out is supporting spam at all levels, I just don't 
understand how anyone could think otherwise.)

Please modify to at least acknowledge that the Task Force does not believe 
opt-out was overlooked.  I do not agree that it was overlooked; therefore 
we are definitely lacking at least a small portion of consensus.

Thanks,

~k