Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Final Charter
At 09/10/2012 10:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi, Never occurred to me to consider it an obfuscation., What did I miss?
Wasn't implying deliberate, just whether it was overly confusing.
Does seem like a hard work item to understand. Are they supposed to determine the truth value of the statement?
I think the WG is supposed to evaluate whether it is indeed beneficial. It is somewhat linked to the second-to-last bullet on whether a Registrar escrow program is still needed.
In any case, thanks. I will pas the questions on to the NCSG g-council members.avri On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:02, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> I read the question as being in relation to the statement "it COULD be beneficial" - is it rally beneficial or not?>> The previous bullet on response consistency is phrased the same way - no question mark but an implied question by not saying it WOULD be beneficial.>> Perhaps not the clearest possible formulation, but I don't see is as obfuscation either, so I can live with it.> > Alan > > At 09/10/2012 09:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >>>> Apologies for missing the meeting - just read the email now about the meeting (wish we have a importable calendar of all WG and DT meetings like AT-Large does).>>>> In an case, read the final proposal and I have a question. If it is too late for them in this DT, then I will ask a NCSG g-council member to ask.>>>> In the second bullet of the Mission, "-stability': is there a question in that? It seems rather declarative and I was wondering if it contained any element of a work item or is it just a declaration of 'fact'>> >> Otherwise it seems fine. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 8 Oct 2012, at 15:08, Marika Konings wrote: >> >> > Dear All, >> >>> > For your information, please find attached the final version of the proposed charter which will be submitted to the GNSO Council as per the DT's meeting today.>> > >> > With best regards, >> > >> > Marika >> > <Thick Whois Charter - Final - 8 October 2012.doc> > >