RE: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

As far as I know, opt out was already in place, or IS already in place,
and simply not working.

Abel


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Kristy McKee
Sent: 22 November 2002 16:29
To: Karen Elizaga
Cc: nc-whois@dnso.org; Francis Coleman; fcoleman@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft


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