RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft final report Whois group v 1.5

[Dan Krimm <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For the record, I support Milton on this point.  I will have more comments
as I make my way through draft 1.5.

Dan


At 9:41 AM -0400 7/21/07, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Philip and all:
>
>I must strongly object that the Whois report on lines 490-494. This is
>simply an accurate characterization of all discussions held so far.
>
>The objectionable text reads:
>
>"There were circumstances where both LEAs and private actors must have
>access described above (6.2, 6.3, 6.4). These circumstances include
>suspected terrorist, fraudulent or other illegal activity, suspected
>consumer harm and suspected intellectual property infringement. (An
>alternate view was that private actors should be denied bulk access
>described under 6.4 in all circumstances.)"
>
>This statement has the actual support levels reversed. There was agreement
>for the idea that LEAs and LEAs ONLY should have 6.3 access, and some
>support for the view they should have 6.4 access.
>
>There was AGREEMENT that private actors should NOT have 6.4 access.
>This is clearly stated in the report of subgroup b. There has been no
>change in the level of support on this matter.
>
>I must demand that this part of the report be changed to reflect the
>actual discussions we had, and am disappointed that I even have to point
>this out.
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.10/908 - Release Date: 7/19/2007
>6:10 PM
>