RE: [alac] WHOIS impact review: Some proposed changes.
- To: Denise Michel <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [alac] WHOIS impact review: Some proposed changes.
- From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:45:37 -0500 (EST)
Unless some members object to the content of the report, which objections
I have not seen but may have missed, I would strongly prefer that the
committee be able to make a statement on a matter of such importance to
the at-large internet users. Please let's not let procedure bog us down.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Denise Michel wrote:
> I think a more productive course of action is for Thomas, who has served on
> the WHOIS Task Force for year(s) as the General Assembly representative, to
> submit his detailed comments as the GA representative, since they seem to
> reflect his experiences and comments he's received on the former GA list.
> If ALAC members feel strongly that a statement must be submitted today, I
> think it needs to be revised to reflect the fact the ALAC is brand new, does
> not have its processes in place, and that it state the ALAC's primary
> concerns and a request to be involved going forward.
> Although this draft "impact review" obviously reflects the great deal of
> time and effort Thomas has spent on WHOIS, I don't think it's appropriate
> for an ALAC submission for numerous reasons:
> a.. ALAC members have not had time to get up to speed on this issue, the
> Task Force's work, and "At-Large" WHOIS concerns, and the ALAC is still
> developing its processes
> b.. ALAC members need to be focused right now on NomCom delegate
> selections and bylaw changes (both with looming deadlines)
> c.. Thomas has just been designated as Task Force ALAC liaison
> d.. This draft is not an "impact statement", but rather report comments.
> Developing an impact statement for individual users is a very challenging
> process, given the vast disparity of individual users of the Internet.
> e.. The Task Force is in the process of producing issues reports on 1)
> further work on accuracy and marketing uses of data 2) consistency and
> uniformity of data elements and searchability and 3) privacy issues related
> to WHOIS. **ALAC has more time to comment on these, if it so chooses.**
> Today's deadline does not have to be met and it is not our only opportunity
> to comment.
> f.. ALAC is in a fragile period of establishing itself and building
> respect and credibility with the ICANN constituencies. You all need to
> ensure that your work represents your constituency *and* builds a working
> relationship with other ICANN stakeholders.
> Your thoughts?
> >Original Message-----
> >From: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> >Vittorio Bertola
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:07 AM
> >To: Thomas Roessler
> >Cc: alac@xxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [alac] WHOIS impact review: Some proposed changes.
> >On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:49:01 +0100, you wrote:
> >>I'm attaching a slightly revised version of the impact review.
> >>Changes are limited to the conclusion, and are marked by
> >>overstriking and underlining in the attached version of the
> >Fine for me. DNSO has just announced that the public comment period is
> >closed, but I guess we're not subject to that. However, we should
> >submit the comment as soon as possible, if no one objects.
> >As a matter of method, I think that rather than calling formal votes
> >on these submissions (and thus having Denise hunt all of us to get our
> >votes) we could simply have a "no objection period" - once the last
> >draft of a document has been published and no objections are raised
> >for, say, 72 hours (or less or more according to urgency), we can
> >consider the document approved. But if anyone would like to go for
> >more formal procedures, that would be fine for me as well.
> >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> >-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------