RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] For your review - revised version of the 'thick' Whois Initial Report

[Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Mike O'Connor<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: ‎6/‎2/‎2013 17:50
To: Metalitz, Steven<mailto:met@xxxxxxx>
Cc: 'Marika Konings'<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 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<mailto: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 whe

[The entire original message is not included.]