DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-whois] revised report: First draft.

THANKS. I had planned to work thorugh the Implementation Committee's input tonight to see how it fits. 
Does it work to use Bruce's formulation and "mark it  up" to show where "we" accept, have questions, etc.?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler-mobile@does-not-exist.net]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 8:47 AM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] revised report: First draft.

A first draft of what our revised report could look like is
available at <http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/revised.html>.

The (modest) changes so far:

- I have changed chapter 10 (publicationand comment period) to
  contain a summary of the outreach process which actually happened.

- I have included summaries of the comments received in response to
  the policy report as Annex B.  This can, of course, easily be
  moved elsewhere -- maybe into chapter 6, "Record of outreach".

  As far as the summaries are concerned, I have made considerable
  use of the notes posted by Steve in early January.  Thanks for

While summarizing, I have tried to focus on relevant comments, i.e.,
I have excluded exchanges between Marilyn and the gTLD registries on
the specifics of comment period, and Jeff's (factually wrong)
complaints about missing comments.

I was also tempted to leave out the last comment (from Ray Fassett):
This one suggests the use of Digital Rights Management technology to
restrict certain uses of the WHOIS database.  Quite frankly, this
heavily looks like "magical thinking" to me, i.e., completely

Of course, all the work on incorporating the implementation
committee's report still needs to be done.

Thomas Roessler (mobile)		<roessler-mobile@does-not-exist.net>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>