RE: [alac] WHOIS impact review: Some proposed changes.
Unless some members object to the content of the report, which objections I have not seen but may have missed, I would strongly prefer that the committee be able to make a statement on a matter of such importance to the at-large internet users. Please let's not let procedure bog us down. --Wendy On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Denise Michel wrote: > I think a more productive course of action is for Thomas, who has served on > the WHOIS Task Force for year(s) as the General Assembly representative, to > submit his detailed comments as the GA representative, since they seem to > reflect his experiences and comments he's received on the former GA list. > If ALAC members feel strongly that a statement must be submitted today, I > think it needs to be revised to reflect the fact the ALAC is brand new, does > not have its processes in place, and that it state the ALAC's primary > concerns and a request to be involved going forward. > > Although this draft "impact review" obviously reflects the great deal of > time and effort Thomas has spent on WHOIS, I don't think it's appropriate > for an ALAC submission for numerous reasons: > > a.. ALAC members have not had time to get up to speed on this issue, the > Task Force's work, and "At-Large" WHOIS concerns, and the ALAC is still > developing its processes > b.. ALAC members need to be focused right now on NomCom delegate > selections and bylaw changes (both with looming deadlines) > c.. Thomas has just been designated as Task Force ALAC liaison > d.. This draft is not an "impact statement", but rather report comments. > Developing an impact statement for individual users is a very challenging > process, given the vast disparity of individual users of the Internet. > e.. The Task Force is in the process of producing issues reports on 1) > further work on accuracy and marketing uses of data 2) consistency and > uniformity of data elements and searchability and 3) privacy issues related > to WHOIS. **ALAC has more time to comment on these, if it so chooses.** > Today's deadline does not have to be met and it is not our only opportunity > to comment. > f.. ALAC is in a fragile period of establishing itself and building > respect and credibility with the ICANN constituencies. You all need to > ensure that your work represents your constituency *and* builds a working > relationship with other ICANN stakeholders. > Your thoughts? > > Denise > > >Original Message----- > >From: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > >Vittorio Bertola > >Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:07 AM > >To: Thomas Roessler > >Cc: alac@xxxxxxxxx > >Subject: Re: [alac] WHOIS impact review: Some proposed changes. > > > > > >On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:49:01 +0100, you wrote: > > > >>I'm attaching a slightly revised version of the impact review. > >>Changes are limited to the conclusion, and are marked by > >>overstriking and underlining in the attached version of the > >>document. > > > >Fine for me. DNSO has just announced that the public comment period is > >closed, but I guess we're not subject to that. However, we should > >submit the comment as soon as possible, if no one objects. > > > >As a matter of method, I think that rather than calling formal votes > >on these submissions (and thus having Denise hunt all of us to get our > >votes) we could simply have a "no objection period" - once the last > >draft of a document has been published and no objections are raised > >for, say, 72 hours (or less or more according to urgency), we can > >consider the document approved. But if anyone would like to go for > >more formal procedures, that would be fine for me as well. > >-- > >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<--- > >-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <----------------------- >