RE: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
- To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>, <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:32:20 -0400
- Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcOYmFDeitGXL9mGSaSrwmH5ugX89gAELNIw
- Thread-topic: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
I think that reasonable people can have different perspectives. I would like us
to discuss the options
carefully and with full information and participation within the Council. I
understand that you have a proposal on that table; there is a different
proposal as well, and both deserve consideration.
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
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.