RE: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
- To: Tom Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>, Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
- From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:26:55 -0400
- Cc: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Whois Steering <whois-sc@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I did not see Milton's message until Thomas replied to it (indeed Milton's
message does not appear on the Whois S/G list archives either) but I must
register an objection to the proposal to further delay ANY consideration of
the accuracy issue (one of the consensus top 5) until after completion of
work on a number of complex issues that were not considered a priority by
more than one or at most two constituencies.
Totally aside from the issue of the Steering Group's priority-setting
process, further delay on the Whois accuracy issue does not strike me as a
viable option for ICANN in the current environment.
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:19 PM
To: Milton Mueller
Cc: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force
I want to support the idea of three separate taskforces as well.
Since the scope of the identified areas is too big to be dealt with
at the same time I would prefere one for each area. Whether this
taskforces should be simultaneously or not should be the decision
of the GNSO council after reviewing the resources of the participating
constituencies. It might be worthwile noting that any constituency is
free to delegate the work on this taskforces to different people in
I personally don't believe that one sole taskforce will be able to deal
with the whole complexity of this issue in a reasonable time.
Am 21.10.2003 schrieb Milton Mueller:
> Bruce and Council:
> As to the options Bruce laid out, I think we already know
> that One Big Task Force won't work, we tried that
> with the Whois TF last time.
> I actually thought we had already solved this problem.
> We form TF 1 and TF2 separately but simultaneously.
> We expect TF1 (data mining) to go faster because
> the issues are narrower. TF2 starts with the (easier)
> notification issues, but those must be performed separately
> (and as Bruce notes, WILL be performed seperatley in any
> case, because the issues and investigations are different).
> By the time TF2 gets around to the hard issues TF1 may
> be finished or close to finished.
> When TF2 is finished, we start TF3. We cannot do TF2 and
> TF3 simultaneously, because accuracy issues depend too
> heavily on privacy protections. That is, we can't know how
> to improve or enforce accuracy until we know what (if any)
> opt out rights registrants have.
> Hope this is an acceptable plan to everyone.
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w