Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] For your review - revised version of the 'thick' Whois Initial Report
hi all, i think this round of edits raises an interesting "process" point. this is almost like a public comment from staff. which is fine, but: - it's coming quite late in our conversation - they're made without a complete understanding of the discussions we've had - many of these could be thought of more as implementation issues -- something we're going to take up in the next round of conversation on the way to a final report so i'm inclined to agree with Steve. unless people have *really* strong views about the changes that came in from staff, let's take a look at setting them aside and including them in the public comments for review. i am still considering the prior draft a "consensus candidate" for approval on the call this week. my thoughts only, happy to discuss on the call. mikey On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:14 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Marika and colleagues, > > I had certainly had the sense that we were reducing the number of open issues > as we proceed closer to issuance of our draft report, so I was disappointed > to see so many new issues thrown on the table in your latest version. > > On pages 18-19 (the version attached to your e-mail had no line numbers) I > see some observations about problematic provisions in existing agreements or > inconsistencies between what registries and registrars are required to do > under their respective agreements. Assuming these observations are accurate, > it is important to capture them, but I wonder whether inserting them into > this document will be distracting or confusing to the reader who may conclude > that they have a bearing on the overall issue we have been asked to consider. > > As the coordinator of the authoritativeness subgroup, it was not reassuring > to see so many proposed edits to this text, which has been quite stable for > several weeks now. The edits on page 33 and footnote 20 make me wonder > whether their author is confusing authoritativeness with accuracy or perhaps > with currentness of data. These are 2 or actually 3 distinct issues. One > of the problems with the status quo is that a great deal of Whois data held > by registrars is authoritative (because there is no other source for it) but > frequently inaccurate (as well documented in the NORC and other studies). > The frequency with which data is updated might make it more accurate (though > not so when inaccurate data is updated with new inaccurate data, a common > occurrence in the current WDPRS, or even when accurate data is updated with > inaccurate data) but it does not make that data any more or less > authoritative under the definitions provided in the text of this report. > > On page 24, I am not sure where the idea came from that registrars stop > publishing Whois data in a thick registry environment. They continue to > publish this data as before. Under the proposed 2013 RAA, one channel of > this publication (Port 43) would no longer be required, but it would still > need to be made available via website. > > I have discussed with Don the issue I raised at the end of our last call (the > reference to safe harbors which appears on page 44 of the text you > circulated). We did not reach agreement but I decided to set the issue aside > in order to expedite our progress toward a draft report. I guess I have to > wonder now whether we are really making forward progress or are circling back > on issues that seemed pretty stable a few weeks ago. > > Steve Metalitz > From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings > Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 6:22 AM > To: gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] For your review - revised version of the > 'thick' Whois Initial Report > > Dear All, > > Please find attached for your review an updated version of the Initial Report > which incorporates the changes discussed on Tuesday's meeting as well as some > additional proposed edits / comments provided by some of my colleagues (most > of these are clarifications / corrections). To facilitate review I've > accepted all the changes from the previous version. There may be some > additional comments forthcoming, but I already wanted to share this version > with you to allow sufficient time to review and highlight any other > substantive comments that should be considered by the WG prior to the next > meeting. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tuesday 28 May 2013 20:24 > To: "gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Final call - please share any substantive > comments on the Initial Report by 4 June > > Dear All, > > As discussed during today's meeting, please share any substantive comments > you have on the latest version of the Initial Report (see attached) ahead of > the next meeting (Tuesday 4 June). The WG intends to close the list of > substantive issues that need to be further discussed by that date. > > With best regards, > > Marika PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|