[gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] remaining comments

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Thick Whois WG colleagues,
I wanted to share the following reactions on some of the remaining comments 
highlighted in Marika's chart.
39.  While I personally agree with this comment (I believe the transition 
should have happened yesterday!), if others do not share that view then I am 
fine if our response as a group is "noted."
40 and 41.  Our standard "thank you for your support" note applies here.
42-45.  All these comments raise (in one way or another) the question of 
whether the transition should be deferred until all the other initiatives now 
underway (WEIRDS, EWG, handling IRD etc.) are resolved.  The WG response given 
in the third column of item 43 is probably an adequate way to respond to all 
these.  I defer to others about whether the view that transition to any new 
system will be more efficient and smooth if the status quo involves only one 
architecture rather than two is just an "assumption," as that response is 
phrased ("the WG assumes"),  or is actually something on which we can take a 
firmer position.  (To me it sounds quite reasonable that this would be the case 
and I would support taking a stronger position on this.)
46.  As summarized this comment is a bit ambiguous.  If it is talking about how 
fast the transition should happen once a consensus policy for "all thick" is in 
place, see 39 above.  If it is urging the current thin registries to start the 
transition now, even before a consensus policy is in place, while I personally 
agree, I am not sure it is really our role to urge this, so I would be OK with 
"noted."
I am not sure at this point whether I will be able to participate in all or 
part of our call next Tuesday, but I hope these observations will help move 
things along.
Steve Metalitz