RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Final Charter

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tim, and I think the draft looks good too...sorry I missed the
call on Monday.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:53 AM
To: Mike O'Connor; owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Avri Doria
Cc: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Final Charter


I read it that way as well Mikey, the way you explain. In any event, at this
point it may be best to take up Avri's question at the Council level. I
think this draft looks good.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:00:02 
To: Avri Doria<avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT<Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Final Charter


hi Avri,

i like the "importable calendar" idea too.  maybe we can do a little
lobbying in Toronto.

i read the paragraph like this.  for each bullet, i added the clause from
the top.  so for me it read

". the PDP WG should, at a minimum, consider the following elements as
detailed in the Final Issue Report:. Stability, in the event of Registrar
business or technical failure"  blah blah blah

to me that meant that the WG should weigh in the pros and cons of thick
Whois on stability in the case of a Registrar business failure and i kinda
passed over it without much thought because there was a pretty strong hint
as to the likely outcome.  ie, that a thick registry would probably improve
stability in the even of business failure because data is stored in more
places -- but that the WG should take a look at both sides of that argument.
it falls in the "slightly awkward but not terrible" category for me.  :-)


On Oct 9, 2012, at 9:18 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Never occurred to me to consider it an obfuscation.,  What did I miss?
> 
> Does seem like a hard work item to understand.  
> Are they supposed to determine the truth value of the statement?
> 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>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)