[nc-whois] some more questions
Members and helpers of NC-Whois taskforce.
After pledging my time to help with the questionaire I have taken the liberty
to read up on the work of the taskorce.
I am surprised (and underwrite Thomas Roessler's email with questions) at
several points which no doubt can be cleared in no time but may help me in
understanding how to handle the questionaires.
If I read it correct the reason for the questionaire is to (quote)"1. solicit
input from as many people as possible concerning the use of Whois service, and
2. assess whether changes should be considered to the current Whois policy
adopted by ICANN. "
Now after a reasonable search effort I have yet to find a "task-description"
for the taskforce and therefore I find myself in the land of assumptions,
upom which assumptions I base my questions.
1. Am I correct in assuming that the reason for the questionaire is broadly
equal to the task-description for the taskforce ?
Now assuming I am correct, since this is a broad flag to fly, I am rendered
helpless by several striking observations (at least to me).
Please let me itterate here that I do not wish to insult anyone, have the
greatest faith in the united capabilities in this taskforce, beacuse had I
not, I would simply have mailed you a "thank you" note.
What I understand from a posting by DNSO Secretariat :
"Remember that we are trying to ascertain whether there is anything
different from the analytical responses. Everyone who provided narrative
responses has also already responded in the sections which have been
analyzed. We are looking for "additional" and unique information which
the analytical responses didn't capture, as well as suggestions for
( http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00146.html )
is that the analytical evaluation has been made, will be made by the DNSO and
henceforth I conclude that we are only to evaluate the "free answers" and to
derive from that a possible working advice (albeit that the advice is
taskforce job, not something some of us were hired for)
Again I ask, is this a correct conclusion/asumption?
If it, however, is the task to ascertain (task solely meant for taskforce)
the need for a set of rules/charter for the whois handling/maintenance, then
striking is that the analytical data is not (yet) available or the data
supplied in a form previously asked for by Danny Younger, that allows
taskforce members to run their own statistics against the data.
Striking also is the lack of direction in that case, whereas important topics
on the entire "whois" handling is influenced by more then "general input".
differentiated laws worldwide, (privacy concerns from EU, new privacy laws to
be in USA and so forth) as well as a case study of current handling of whois
databases in the ccTLD would have been excellent startpoints for
ascertaining the need for renewals.
Of course I have not been part on any of the previous meetings, f2f or tele,
but unfortunately strikingly little can be found in the maillinglist
archives, normally an abundant source for research on ground principals.
I would be gratefull to the TF if a coherent statement could be made towards
us "newbies" on what agenda the TF desires to work on, and what ultimate
goals she wishes to achieve and preferably by what means.
I again expres my apologies to those I might insult with the above, there is
no intention to do so, in fact there is no mal-intent (sic).
Should such guidelines be topic of contemplation within the taskforce at this
moment in time then I would like to know whether the "helpers" on this list
are welcomed to expres their thoughts on the process or whether this would be
seen as to much interference.
Awaiting your answer on or of-list,
office +44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16
www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls