RE: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft? (PLEASE READ ASAP)

["David Fares" <dfares@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have responded to Jeremy's comments in capital letters after each of 
his comments below.

Thanks,
David




From:           	"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:             	"'Jeremy Banks'" <Jeremy.Banks@xxxxxxxx>,

  	"dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
 	<dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
  	"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:        	RE: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft? (PLEASE READ ASAP)
Date sent:      	Thu, 27 May 2004 13:39:43 -0400

> Would everyone please review the comments presented by Jeremy.  If
> indeed other constituencies agree with Jeremy on his comments with
> respect to these, then I will need to note that and will move to the
> body of the report.  
> 
> With respect to voting, I have argued the position, that voting is not
> crucial at the Preliminary Report stage and that the ICANN bylaws are
> silent on that point.  The Bylaws require voting for the Final Report,
> but it is ambiguous as to whether there needs to be voting for this
> report.  I have sent this question on to the other Task Forces and to
> ICANN Counsel.  I have not heard a response.
> 
> The important thing, I believe, and I could be wrong, is to have all
> views represented in this Preliminary Report.
> 
> I will let you know when I hear something.
> 
> Please stay tuned.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Banks [mailto:Jeremy.Banks@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:08 PM
> To: dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft?
> 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> Comments as requested:
> 
> Footnote 9: This is the position of 3 constituencies (IPC, ISPCP and
> BC) and needs to be moved into the main body of the text.

I AGREE.  THERE IS A CLOSE SPLIT SO CAN IT BE CLASSIFIED 
AS A FINDING?  AT A MINIMUM WE SHOULD CLEARLY 
DIFFERENTIATE FINDINGS BY CONSENSUS, MAJORITY OR 
50/50 FINDINGS WITH SUBSECTIONS.   

> 
> Footnote 11: I also believe some of the other constituencies support
> this position, not just the IPC. If so, this disagreement should be
> reflected in the main body of the text.
> 
I AGREE WITH FOOTNOTE 11.  HOWEVER, WE MAY BE ABLE TO 
SOLVE THIS BY ADDING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SENTENCE 
"CONSISTENT WITH ITS MANDATE, . . ."  I THINK THAT WE 
WOULD THEN BE MAKING A FACTUAL STATEMENT.


> Footnote 17: I believe the statement in the footnote; "we were able to
> reach a consensus on which data we believed, at a minimum, would be
> considered 'non-sensitive.'" may be inaccurate.  It suggests that all
> constituencies supported making determinations about the sensitivity
> of data elements. I believe some of the constituencies did not agree
> with this.

I AGREE WITH THIS POINT.  I WAS THE ONE THAT RAISED IT 
INITIALLY AS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF OUR TF.  

> 
> Footnote 18: I also believe some of the other constituencies support
> this position, not just the IPC. If so, this disagreement should be
> reflected in the main body of the text.

I AGREE.  IT IS A FACT THAT NATIONAL LAW, WHERE APPLICABLE, MUST BE COMPLIED WITH.  
HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THIS STATEMENT GOES BEYOND 
OUR MANDATE.

> 
> Footnote 22:  I also believe some of the other constituencies support
> this position, not just the IPC. If so, this disagreement should be
> reflected in the main body of the text.

I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS, BUT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION 
INCONSISTENT.  WE SAY THAT USERS OF PORT 43 CAN'T BE 
DIFFERENTIATED AND THEN SAY IT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO 
REGISTRARS?

> 
> Rewording of paragraphs 4 and 5 on page 11 - 8 Approval Process for
> Automated Searches to prevent data mining as follows:
> 
> Paragraph 4 - A minority of the Task Force constituencies, including
> those representing the Non-commercial Constituency, in addition to the
> At-Large Advisory Council, believe that the creation of a White List
> would be impractical and would place a large burden on the entity
> handling requests to be on the White List.  In addition, they do not
> believe that any Requestor should be entitled to the Sensitive Data
> unless retrieval of such information was pursuant to a formal request
> by law enforcement (i.e., subpoena).  

I AGREE WITH THIS.
> 
> Paragraph 5 - A majority of the Task Force constituencies, including
> those from the Commercial and Business users, ISPs, gTLD Registries
> and Intellectual Property Owners do not fundamentally oppose the
> "White List", but believe that it is essential for those legitimate
> Whois users to obtain the Sensitive Whois information in a timely and
> reliable manner.  Moreover, these representatives questioned whether
> the cost of implementing such a system would be one which could be
> borne by the current funding models, and encourage that a cost-benefit
> analysis be undertaken before any such system is approved and
> implemented.

I AGREE WITH THIS.


> 
> With regards to voting on the report, I assume we will be doing it
> recommendation by recommendation rather than on the entire report?
> Given the timelines, I recall this vote was going to be done by
> e-mail. When do you anticipate this will take place?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 27 May 2004 01:40
> To: 'dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff
> Subject: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft?
> 
> All,
> 
> Below is a redline and clean version of the Preliminary Draft v. 6.  I
> believe I have captured all of the comments that were sent.  I ended
> up putting most of them in the body of the report and only a few ended
> up in footnotes.  If anyone disagrees with the placement of any of the
> footnotes in this draft, please let me know.  In your comments back,
> you need to be specific as to which footnote you believe should be
> moved up to the main body.
> 
> One more note, I adopted some of the language from Milton on the 2
> alternatives in the White List Discussion.  I also used my Chair's
> discretion :) to name the second alternative the "Individual Use
> List." You will see this in the draft as well.
> 
> Anyway, I expect most of the comments at this point to be grammatical
> and serious disagreements with the language.  PLEASE HELP WITH THE
> GRAMMATICAL REVIEW AS I AM A LITTLE TO CLOSE TO THIS DRAFT TO CATCH
> EVERYTHING. This needs to be submitted by Friday.
> 
> We have been working on this draft for a long time.  Thanks to
> everyone for their hard work in making this a reality!
> 
> Also, remember that this is only phase 1.  In the coming weeks we will
> need you all to pay attention to the comments we receive so that we
> can do a final draft.
> 
> Thanks again!!!!!
> 
>  <<Whois TF 1 - Preliminary Report v 0.6.doc>>  <<Redline 6.doc>> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
> Director, Law & Policy 
> NeuStar, Inc. 
> Loudoun Tech Center 
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza 
> Building X 
> Sterling, VA 20166 
> p: (571) 434-5772 
> f: (571) 434-5735 
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 

David A. Fares
Director, Electronic Commerce
U.S. Council for International Business
dfares@xxxxxxxxx
Tel: 212-703-5061
     212-354-4480
Fax: 212-575-0327