RE: [whois-sc] DRAFT 3 of Task force 1
- To: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [whois-sc] DRAFT 3 of Task force 1
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:47:56 +1000
- Cc: <whois-sc@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcOM6/KL4MLul16oS+CdF1EcBHTyzQAUBg7A
- Thread-topic: [whois-sc] DRAFT 3 of Task force 1
Thanks for the feedback.
> Your redline version reflects that the next to last in-scope
> paragraph was "removed at the request of members of the
> registrars constituency." Your first paragraph refers to
> comments "from registrars that were not directly represented
> on the call." My recollection is that there was a
> representative of the registrar constituency on the call, so
> I don't understand this reference.
The registrars reps elected by rhe registrars constituency are Thomas
Keller and Mark Jeftovic. Neither were on the call to my recollection.
I am not on the committee as a registrars rep, but as an "interim"
The requests to which I referred to were on the public registrars
The relevant postings are:
I think the issue is that registrars do not want another obligation/cost
to provide free searching tools, although registrars may be happy with a
choice of providing either bulk access ot searching tools at some sort
of cost recovery fee.
> Additionally, this
> deletion was not discussed on the call (as far as I
> recollect, and your first paragraph seems to indicate that
> this was the case), so at a minimum I suggest that the reason
> for the proposed deletion be circulated to the list by the
> constituency proposing it. Pending that circulation, I
> suggest this language be restored.
A fair request. I leave it to Thomas Keller or Mark Jeftovic to
comment, and if none is received I will revert it to the previous text.
> The revision to the last in-scope paragraph completely
> deletes one of its two original foci so my proposed language
> (in CAPS) would seek to restore that. I recall that one
> member of the Steering Group articulated a moral objection to
> such value-added services, but the existing RAA recognizes
> that they perform a useful function, and I suggest that the
> impact of any recommended changes on the viability of such
> services is an appropriate
> topic for proposed Task Force 1.
No problem with adding the text you suggested. It wasn't my intent to
remove that meaning, I was trying to use simpler language (ie implied in
what I proposed), but I agree that it is probably better to be more