RE: [gnso-dow123] Revised Preliminary Task Force Report on Whois Services

["Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ross and Steve, I've made the change. 

I'll send out a 'final final' version of this once I've got the last of the
comments. It'll be either later today or first thing Monday, depending on
when the final comments arrive. 

All the best, Maria

-----Original Message-----
From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:14 AM
To: Ross Rader; Maria Farrell
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Revised Preliminary Task Force Report on Whois
Services

Ross is right that I proposed to change "could" to "should" but I certainly
will not insist on it. 

Steve 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:48 PM
To: Maria Farrell
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Revised Preliminary Task Force Report on Whois
Services

Jordyn/Maria;

This particular phrase keeps changing back and forth between "could"  
and "should". I don't believe that we have consensus that awareness of the
contact types *should* be approved, in fact I and others have spoken against
this type of activity being included in policy on grounds that ICANN
consumer protection or consumer awareness are not within ICANN's scope. The
last version said "could", this version says "should".

 From what I can tell from the redline history, this was changed pursuant to
Steve's draft after the earlier changes were reviewed and accepted by the TF
on the call two weeks ago. I don't believe that this last change was
discussed before it was accepted and merged into the draft we have before
us.

My strong preference would be to revert back to the prior language that
"awareness of registrants about the contacts could be improved..." on the
basis that it is more consistent with the TF discussions and the text that
immediately follows the statement.

"The task force generally agreed that awareness of registrants about the
contacts should be improved, especially if a different type of contact - the
OPoC - was introduced."

Were there some level of agreement to the proposal that the registrars
floated that consumer awareness about the new policy be conducted through
the implementation of best practices at the registrar level as we have done
in the past, then we could probably support changing this statement to
"should", but until there is some agreement on the tactics, I don't believe
that we can move on to making the statement that we
*should* raise awareness.

Thanks,

-ross

On 16-Nov-06, at 3:53 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:

> Dear task force members,
>
> Attached is the revised Preliminary Task Force Report on Whois 
> Services ahead of the scheduled vote on the report during next 
> Monday's call (20 November).
>
> There are two versions; one with changes marked, and a clean version.
>
> All the best, Maria
> <Preliminary TF Report on Whois Services DRAFT 5 changes marked.doc> 
> <Preliminary TF Report on Whois Services DRAFT 5 CLEAN.doc>