Re: [gnso-dow123] FW: Final Whois Task Force report on Recommendation 1 - improving notification and consent

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jordyn, if you want to propose that language, which I agree is more accurate 
description of the discussion, I am happy to support the chamge in the language.

I would expect other TF members to be supportive since it is clarification.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 11:51:11 
To:Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] FW:  Final Whois Task Force report on Recommendation 
1 - improving notification and consent

Tim:

I think this is just a parsing issue with the sentence, although in  
retrospect it probably could have been more clear.  The intent is for  
something that probably reads more like this:

"There was not universal agreement in the task force on the inclusion  
of these issues, nor that all of these issues are worthy of further  
consideration, and this list is not intended to be exhaustive".  I'll  
be on the council call on Thursday and make this clear.

Jordyn

On May 28, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> All,
>
> Regarding the implementation issues document, it says in the opening
> paragraph:
>
> "These issues are not agreed on by everyone in the task force, all
> issues are worthy of further consideration and the list is not
> exhaustive."
>
> That is not exactly how I recall it. The second phrase of this  
> sentence
> contradicts the first. I thought part of the disagreement over
> including these issues was that not everyone believed they were worth
> further consideration. I think either of the following two suggestions
> more accurately captures what was agreed to:
>
> 1. These issues are not agreed on by everyone in the task force,  
> and the
> list is not exhaustive.
>
> OR
>
> 2. These issues are not agreed on by everyone in the task force and  
> not
> all agree that these issues are worthy of further consideration, and
> the list is not exhaustive.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-dow123] FW:  Final Whois Task Force report on
> Recommendation 1 - improving notification and consent
> From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, May 26, 2005 2:52 pm
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> FYI below is the message that went to the GNSO Council enclosing the
> final task force report and the list of potential implementation
> issues/questions.
>
> All the best, Maria
>
>   From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 9:42 PM
> To: 'owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Final Whois Task Force report on Recommendation 1 - improving
> notification and consent
>
>
>
>  Dear all,
>    Attached is the Final Task Force Report on recommendations for
> improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the
> Whois system.  I am submitting this report to you on behalf of the
> Combined WHOIS Task Force (1, 2, 3) of the GNSO Council.     The
> Combined Whois Task Force has continued the work of Task Force 2 whose
> terms of reference (29 October 2003) included the task of determining;
> "What is the best way to inform registrants of what information about
> themselves is made publicly available when they register a domain name
> and ... and receive notification of its use?"    In addition, during
> the combined task force's discussions, a number of implementation
> issues were identified as possibly appropriate for consideration by an
> implementation group, if the Council chooses to form such a group.  
> This
> list is attached with the caveats that the issues are not agreed on by
> everyone in the task force, are all worthy of further consideration  
> and
> the list is not exhaustive.    Best regards, Maria
>
>


Regards,
Marilyn Cade