RE: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft? (PLEASE READ ASAP)
- To: <dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft? (PLEASE READ ASAP)
- From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 19:51:00 -0400
- Sender: owner-dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "David Fares" <dfares@xxxxxxxxx> 05/28/04 12:50PM >>>
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
We say that Port 43 by itself cannot distinguish between
PURPOSES. We can however differentiate types of users,
particularly when they are accredited in a bright line way
> 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.
I don't - MM, what happened to the registrars?
They expressed criticism of the WL and should be included.