[gnso-dow123] Short comments on report draft

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Maria, et al

A very good start. It is good for this group to reminded of how long
and circuitous our progress has been. You have done a great job of
collecting the relevant documents and creating a record. 

I would propose two fairly simple modifications. 

First, in the opening paragraph, please delete the sentence: "WHOIS is
an essential part of ICANN's mission to promote security and stability
on the Internet." That would be a policy conclusoin - and one on which
there is obviously no consensus, either in this TF or in the  Internet
community as a whole. In fact although ICANN's mission statement is
referenced, one can easily see that there is no mention of WHOIS,
registrant data, access to that data, or the accuracy of that data in
the mission statement. 

Second, in the paragraph on "Previous ICANN work on WHOIS" it would be
helpful to add a sentence to the effect that the first whois task force
made a decision to defer discussion of privacy issues. That will make it
clearer why the GNSO launched a new WHOIS proceeding shortly after the
conclusion of the first one.

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 3/28/2005 7:43:57 PM >>>
Dear all,

Here it is...

Sorry for the delay and suspense - it really took an awful lot longer
than
anticipated. I'm afraid it's a very long document. 

I hope you will have an opportunity to review the essential parts
before
tomorrow night's call.  I've included a table of contents to try and
make it
easier to scan. 

All the best, Maria

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 2:36 AM
To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx 
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Agenda for Tomorrow

Ross:

The original intent was to discuss the report with an eye towards 
completing the requirements of the PDP for the creation of a 
"preliminary report", which we spent some time discussing on the last 
call.  (Unfortunately, I'm in e-mail only mode right now, so I can't 
pull up the relevant language, but there is a requirement for a meeting

within 5 days of the publication of the preliminary report in order to

try to resolve any substantive disagreements or something like that.)

However, as we've not yet seen the report and we're less than 24 hours

away from the meeting, I'm somewhat inclined to take Milton's advice 
and defer the meeting.  However, that leaves us in a bit of a bind as 
I'm fairly confident that Maria will succeed in
"publishing" the report in the near future, and it will be difficult to

schedule a formal meeting of the TF until the week after next, given 
that many of us will be traveling to Mar Del Plata (and some of us 
won't, as well).  To that end, we'd probably need to advise the council

of another deviation from the PDP, but that we would expect to make the

report available for its public comment period shortly after Mar Del 
Plata.

Jordyn

On Mar 28, 2005, at 5:17 PM, Ross Rader wrote:

> At this stage, I'm less interested in the actual contents of the 
> document than I am in understanding what the goal of the "discussion

> of the report" is.
>
> Without a clear sense of what "the discussion" is going to be about,

> I'm not inclined to even read the document.
>
> Put another way, this document can be evaluated in any number of
ways. 
> The agenda doesn't make it clear what outcome we expect from
tomorrow. 
> I'd hate to be reading this with an eye for typo's and bad formatting

> if I should be looking at it with an eye for statements I agree and 
> disagree with.
>
> The task force seems to be proceeding on the notion that the scope of

> work is well understood while forgetting that we have recently merged

> three different task forces thus creating an environment where it is

> extremely easy to misjudge the actual scope and intent of the 
> conversation.
>
> I'd really appreciate some clarification on the agenda for tomorrow
to 
> make sure that I can allocate sufficient time to understand the level

> of detail necessary to have an informed discussion on tomorrow's
call.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Maria Farrell wrote:
>> Hi Milton,
>> Working on it - it really is a behemoth, but I should circulate 
>> within the
>> next hour or so. Cheers, Maria
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Milton Mueller
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:00 AM
>> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ross@xxxxxxxxxx 
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Agenda for Tomorrow
>> Yes, I share Ross's need for an update. I would very much hope and
>> expect the preliminary report to be sent to us today sometime, so we

>> can
>> read it before the call. If not, perhaps the call should be
deferred.
>> Dr. Milton Mueller
>> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> http://www.digital-convergence.org 
>> http://www.internetgovernance.org 
>>>>> Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> 3/28/2005 10:44:14 AM >>>
>> Apologies for missing last weeks call. In an effort to get caught up

>> in
>> time for tomorrow's call, I was hoping that someone could update me
on
>> the agenda for tomorrow? The current agenda, which I suspect is out
of
>> date, is only this:
>> Subject: Whois task Force 123
>> Comments/Agenda: Discuss the Preliminary Report to be sent to the
>> list.
>> Much thanks in advance,
>
>
> -- 
>
>
>
>
>
>                       -rwr
>
>
>
> Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross 
> Skydasher: A great way to start your day
> My weblog: http://www.byte.org 
>
>