RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed revision #1
- To: Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed revision #1
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:06:50 -0700
I have not vote, but I agree with Tom.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Proposed revision #1
From: Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, August 31, 2005 3:31 am
To: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Whois TF mailing list <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
thanks for all the work. Having considered the proposed changes I would
suggest that we leave the recommendation in its original wording and
simply add the changes as questions for the public commenting period
and finalize the preliminary report.
Am 30.08.2005 schrieb Jordyn A. Buchanan:
> This is the first in a series of e-mails to take up the revisions
> that have been suggested by various constituencies. We discussed
> this first change at length today.
> I think we are closest to agreement on language that makes exceptions
> applicable to all registrars that the conflict applies to (as opposed
> to all registrars, or to just the registrar making the request).
> Here's some specific text to discuss. Paragraph 2 (c) of the policy
> recommendation would be changed to the following (insertion marked in
> bold italics):
> c. Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in
> circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an
> exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars
> to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection,
> display and distribution of personally identifiable data via Whois; and
> Similarly, sub-paragraph iv of Step Three would be replaced with the
> following (changes marked in bold italics again):
> Recommendation of how the issue should be resolved, which may include
> whether ICANN should provide an exception for those registrars/
> registries to which the specific conflict applies from one or more
> identified WHOIS contractual provisions. The report should include a
> detailed justification of its recommendation, including the
> anticipated impact on the operational stability, reliability,
> security, or global interoperability of the Internet's unique
> identifier systems if the recommendation were to be approved or denied.
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w