ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Whois study suggetsions

  • To: "'Rosette, Kristina'" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "'Thomas Keller'" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Whois study suggetsions
  • From: "liz.gasster" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:03:07 -0800
  • Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <3BA081BEFB35144DBD44B2F141C2C727047AAA8F@cbiexm04dc.cov.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <000901c85475$4e5c7c90$0200a8c0@ICANN1226> <3BA081BEFB35144DBD44B2F141C2C727047AAA8F@cbiexm04dc.cov.com>
  • Reply-to: <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AchTueLZnmWIx+2GSY+eO+H+4zMy7gAdLjegAA96VyAACux7wAAAzbcA

Thanks Kristina.  Apparently that redaction feature is a straightforward
algorithm in email but is more complex to employ to delete partial portions
of text in an on-line form.  I'm sure it could be mastered nonetheless.  I
was excited to get the online form working given time deadlines and opted
for prudence and expediency.  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 1:29 PM
To: liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx; Thomas Keller
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Whois study suggetsions

Steve DelBianco submitted them on behalf of NetChoice.  He gave me
permission to REVEAL and asked that I let you all know he is happy to answer
any questions anyone may have about the study proposals.  

Liz, I know that some - but not all - of my contact information is redacted
when I post to the Council list from my Blackberry (which has that pesky
automatic e-signature).  Perhaps the method used there could be cross
applied here?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of liz.gasster
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 12:13 PM
To: 'Thomas Keller'
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Whois study suggetsions

Hi Tom,

Yes, I take your overall point!  As to the details of how this came about,
the answer has more of a technical reason, not so much a policy rationale.
I wanted to solicit full reach information (which is not usually the case
for public comments) so that I could follow up and ask clarifying questions
if need be, without revealing all info to the world, but couldn't separate
the "name and affiliation" from the reach info, so we opted to blank out all
from the public view.  

I guess I'll operate like an OPOC in this case...I will RELAY but not


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 12:50 AM
To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: AW: [council] Whois study suggetsions


What strikes me as very strange is that everyone who registeres a domain
name in the gTLD world will be held out to the public but persons/groups
that suggest further studies on this issue are

Submitted By:
[Redacted for privacy reasons]




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2008 19:52
An: 'Council GNSO'
Betreff: [council] Whois study suggetsions

Dear Council members,

The 3 study suggestion responses to topics of study on WHOIS may be directly
viewed at:


These are published on page:
and by clicking on the link at the bottom of the text marked [comments],
the studies may be seen along with any comments that may be submitted.

Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks you.
Kind regards,


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>