<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [nc-whois] correction -- NOT yet defunct WHOIS TF -- we don't get off THAT easy!
Dear Bruce,
The GNSO meeting minutes state:
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Marilyn Cade, moved that:
- The WHOIS task force complete the administrative work
- The WHOIS task force list remein open until the administrative work is
complete
- A Period of two weeks be allowed for this
- The WHOIS task force be closed as from May 1, 2003
Votes: 21 votes in favour, Milton Mueller against, Chun Eung Hwi
abstained, no vote from Gabriel Pineiro (absent, no proxy)
Decision 6:
Continue WHOIS task force until completion of administrative work. The
WHOIS task force be closed as from May 1, 2003
I sincerely had the understanding that the WHOIS Task Force's last
acts were the Final Report, the various issues reports, and the RIO
meeting. It is unclear that "complete the administrative
work" is equivalent to the WHOIS Task Force submitting an additional
background report.
Can you please clarify for the benefit of all WHOIS Task Force
members?
Thank you in advance for your time, help, consideration, and any
clarification.
With best regards,
Ruchika
At 11:20 AM 4/8/2003 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:
Team,
I think there was a misunderstanding and let's correct it for the record,
and
for all of us. And I support my co-chair's feedback regarding procedures
related to
communications on belalf of the TF.
We presented the Issues report, which was sent to Staff for drafting. The
Non-Commercial
privacy advocacy piece was also forwarded to the Staff at the same time.
Staff how has
an assignment and then will return a document to Council.
Secondly, we are committed to finalizing our background piece and have
until 4/30 to do so.
So, Tony and I want to check your calendars for the next two -- and final
meetings of the TF. In other
words, WE aren't actually "defunct" yet. :-)
Our final work together is now to complete finalizing our
background document. Thomas and I have emailed each other about
time frames... And, Kristy and Ram and Tony and I need to talk about what
your wrap up will be... it can be incorporated into the Background
document, if that seems the most appropriate...
I'd like to have a edit from anyone into us by CoB Thursday of this week
on the last
version of the background document I distributed. Thomas, you had some
extensive suggestions as well.
Then, I'll ask Glen to post working dates for two final calls.
THEN, the co-chairs will announce the closing of the TF, in conjunction
with the Council staff and chair.
Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Harris
[mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:02 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
Subject: Fw: [nc-whois] TR: [Views On] New WHOIS Database Rules
Marilyn,
What do you think ?
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>
To: <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>; <nc-whois@dnso.org>;
"Ruchika Agrawal"
<agrawal@epic.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] TR: [Views On] New WHOIS Database Rules
> Ruchika,
>
> It is not clear whether or not you replied directly to
> Bob Keller, as the message below is not addressed
> to him. Nonetheless, I dont recall instances wherein
> individual members of the Whois Task Force
> took it upon themselves to reply to comments
> received, and airing their views in that response.
>
> I realize it has been difficult for you to accomodate to
> working with a group, but even the "defunct" status
with
> which you qualify the Whois Task Force, does not
> free the floor for you to assume the role of spokesman
> (spokeswoman?) for Whois matters.
>
> Since the original message was directed to the DNSO
> Secretariat, I would like other opinions from the
"defunct"
> Whois Task Force members on the appropriate response
> to Bob Keller (for the record I agree with his views), if
> any procedural action is in order. If Bob Keller received
> Ruchika's reply, then I would propose we send a
> response that thanks him for his contribution and encourages
> him to stay tuned to further work on Privacy issues.
>
> Tony Harris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ruchika Agrawal" <agrawal@epic.org>
> To: <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>;
<nc-whois@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [nc-whois] TR: [Views On] New WHOIS Database
Rules
>
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Keller,
> >
> > While your opinion/perspective is appreciated,
policy-development for
> WHOIS
> > is not as simple as you've suggested below. ;)
Please see the Privacy
> > Issues Report
>
<http://www.epic.org/privacy/whois/privacy_issues_report.pdf>
> > submitted by the non-commercial constituency - it discusses
other types
of
> > domain name registrants and other issues that should be
considered in
> > determining appropriate WHOIS policy.
> >
> > The WHOIS Task Force is now defunct.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ruchika
> >
> > At 09:17 AM 4/8/2003 +0200, DNSO SECRETARIAT wrote:
> >
> >
> > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > >De : Bob Keller
[mailto:bob@bobknet.com]
> > >Envoye : mardi 8 avril 2003 01:09
> > >A : secretariat@dnso.org
> > >Objet : New WHOIS Database Rules
> > >
> > >
> > >Ladies & Gentlemen,
> > >
> > >While I support the efforts to achieve a modicum of privacy
in WHOIS
> > >lookups, I think it is also important to have
"some" basic and
essential
> > >information on Domain ownership available to the
public. For example,
in
> > >doing business on the Internet, I believe it's important to
be able to
> look
> > >up who owns a company web site, and where they are located
-- for this
> > >often has a bearing on whether I choose to do business with
the company
> or
> > >not.
> > >
> > >If the Domain Name is registered to a business, or if the
domain is
> > >registered to an individual who is doing business on the
Internet, why
> > >would any legitimate business or business owner NOT want
ALL of the
> > >pertinent information relevant to the business to be
available to the
> > >public? I would certainly be suspicious of any
business that would
> > >not. Full disclosure of company information should
therefore be
> mandatory
> > >in these cases.
> > >
> > >However, if a domain is registered to an individual and the
site is
being
> > >used for purely for non-commercial purposes, I support
restricting the
> > >available WHOIS ownership information to Name, City and
State only --
IF
> > >the individual desires such privacy. It should
be at the individual's
> > >option to have the balance of the domain registration
information
> > >displayed. Technical contact information should be
displayed in its
> > >entirety, since this is often needed to contact web site or
E-mail
> > >administrators, in the event of malfunctions.
> > >
> > >Thank you for reviewing my comments.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >Bob Keller
> >
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|