Re: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2
- To: <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2
- From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:05:51 -0400
- Cc: <whois-sc@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/14/03 05:13AM >>>
>> b) What
>> [**REPLACE is the minimum required information about
>> ** WITH changes, if any, should be made in the data elements]
>> about registrants that must be collected at the time of registration to
>> maintain adequate contact-ability?
>As this question is phrased now, the answer is "none"; the question
>does not provide useful and clear guidance for future policy-making.
>Answering the question that was originally asked would actually
>generate the kind of input that is needed for a rational policy
>decision. Please undo this change.
I want to emphasize the importance of what Thomas is saying
here. We can have a real policy debate and discussion of what
data elements are required for contactability while maximizing
privacy. We cannot have such a decision or debate about
the question as phrased above. Whatever one's policy position,
we need to have a real issue/question before us.
>> 2. Conduct an analysis of the existing uses of the registrant data
>> elements currently captured as part of the domain name registration
>> process. Develop list of
>> [** REPLACE minimal ** WITH optimal]
>> required elements for contact-ability.
>"optimal" is ill-defined in this context, since it is not clear
>*what* should actually be optimized. Please keep the original
>wording which actually formulates a well-posed problem.
I agree. However, by using the word "minimal" the old wording was not
intended to imply that we "will" decide data elements will be
eliminated or reduced, it is simply an attempt to define a
benchmark. If other constituencies are uncomfortable with
the implications of that word (minimal) I am flexible about changing
it, but the focus of the TF on "what data elements are required"
(no more, no less) MUST be retained.
>Or is this supposed to mean that "optimal contact-ability" should be
>the target of this task force?
Clearly, it is not. We must focus on the privacy/contactibility
trade off. That is what this TF is about. Efforts to divert
attention from that must cease.