Milton, I started that way, but my first redline was basically ignored.
There are still so many problems in my opinion that it would not be
practical to try and list them all. I highly doubt any significant
changes are going to be made at this point. I think this debate just
needs to end so we can pursue something more constructive and productive
with our time.
So my disagreement with the various sections can be read as "there are
too many problems to enumerate and so I cannot agree with any part of
it."
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Comments on WWG report draft 1.5
From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, July 27, 2007 7:54 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-whois-wg"
<gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Tim, David and all:
While I agree with many of your statements it would be more constructive
if your agreements/disagreements were more fine-grained.
When you say, e.g., that you do not agree with "any recommendations or
statements" in 2.2, 2.3, or 2.4 does it mean:
- that you disagree with the statement that " Registrar accreditation
[of OPoCs] was generally thought to be neither scaleable not practical."
?
- that you disagree with the statement that "the OPoC must consent to
being an OPoC?"
- are you keeping in mind that on the call the chair agreed to change
the language characterizing the OPoC as an "agent" of the registrant?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 7:45 AM
To: 'gnso-whois-wg'
Subject: [gnso-whois-wg] Comments on WWG report draft 1.5
1. The Chair should include a detailed explanation as to how he used his
authority to determine agreement.
2. There a few places where it says *One Registrar* this or that. I
think it is now clear it is more than one registrar, at least three by
my count.
3. There should be more definitions in the glossary - cyber-squatting
for example.
4. An appendix should be added that details at the individual
participant level as to who agreed to what, and a detailed reference of
participants' stated interests so that it can be cross-referenced with
this appendix.
5. I DO NOT agree with any of the recommendations or statements as
written in the following sections:
a. Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4
b. Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
c. Section 4 in whole.
d. Section 5.2.
e. Section 6 in whole.
Likewise, can you specify in more detail:
what it is about 3.2 and 3.3 that you disagree with? there are a number
of concepts in there.
What is wrong with 5.2?
"A distinction between legal and natural persons should be made.
This distinction must be made by the Registrant at the moment of
registration.
There is no need for validation or a challenge mechanism to this
self-declaration at the moment of registration."
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.20/919 - Release Date:
7/26/2007 9:56 AM