<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] ALMOST there, but we ran out of time
- To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT" <Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] ALMOST there, but we ran out of time
- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 07:24:51 -0700
Dear All,
Further to the Doodle poll, the Thick WHOIS call is scheduled on Monday 8th
October at 1800 UTC. The call details will be circulated shortly.
With best regards,
Marika
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 4 October 2012 22:45
To: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>,
"Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
<Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] ALMOST there, but we ran out of time
As per Mikey's email, please complete the following doodle poll as soon as
possible: http://www.doodle.com/4hygcgna75kcw7gq.
Thanks,
Marika
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 4 October 2012 22:33
To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
<Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] ALMOST there, but we ran out of time
hi all,
we had a productive call today and just plain ran out of time with one last
issue unresolved. i was wavering between pushing a little harder to get the
draft out the door and giving us more time, and came down on the "more time"
side at the very end.
so here's my thinking at the moment.
-- it would still be very helpful to for us to hit the Council
document-submission cutoff (9-Oct) because if we miss this cycle, we cause a
long decision-making lag due to the impact of the Toronto meeting
-- we're just a drafting team, helping the Council do work that they would
otherwise have to do themselves. so our document isn't final anyway -- they
can amend it. it's not like the report of a PDP where the Council should send
the document back to the working group for revisions if they're required. this
is supporting the Council in its "manage the PDP process" by helping them write
a charter. ultimately the final language of the charter comes from the Council.
-- so let's try to schedule one more call, early next week, to hammer out the
last remaining issue and then push our draft along to the Council
to that end, Gisella or Marika will be sending along a Doodle poll Real Soon
Now to see if we can find a time to meet.
meanwhile, i've attached the markup that resulted from the call today. i've
highlighted (in yellow) my revised version of the last remaining issue. i've
tried to sharpen the language a bit. here are the "before" and "after versions;
before (submitted by Keith)
Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that ‘thick’ Whois should
be required for all gTLDs, the PDP WG is also expected to consider: ...
- Are existing contact terms between registrars and registrants
sufficient to permit the transfer of registrant data to the registry in
connection with a transition from a ‘thin’ to ‘thick’ Whois? If not, what is
the potential impact?
after (revised by Mikey)
Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that ‘thick’ Whois should
be required for all gTLDs, the PDP WG is also expected to consider: ...
- Whether existing contract terms between registrars and registrants
(Registration Agreements, which include consensus policies by reference) are
sufficient to permit the transfer of registrant data to the registry in
connection with a transition from a ‘thin’ to ‘thick’ Whois. If not, what are
the potential issues and suggested ways to address them?
thanks,
mikey
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|