<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
AW: [council] Motion
- To: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: AW: [council] Motion
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:57:48 +0200
- Accept-language: de-DE
- Acceptlanguage: de-DE
- In-reply-to: <02a001cd4488$0eb92c70$2c2b8550$@ipracon.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E44A5A8@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <02a001cd4488$0eb92c70$2c2b8550$@ipracon.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQJNql0euts0GAWMz6hQIjsAKgHswpXtuWswgAA3PrA=
- Thread-topic: [council] Motion
Hi Jonathan,
1.
it was the RAP WGs intention rather than mine to "determine what additional
research and processes may be needed to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in
an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion", and that's
still valid. The council so far took several actions, e.g. allocating the item
to the WhoIs survey working team. This team just didn't see the item being in
its scope. That doesn't mean the item - as intended by the RAG WG - is
finished. So the council should search for different approach e.g. covering it
with the RAA PDP.
2.
It should be discussed whether the RAA PDP is the right way to do so taking
also into consideration the respective timeline. Any purposeful alternativ
suggestions welcome!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2012 10:32
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [council] Motion
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
This is something that we discussed at our SG meeting today. We are expect to
ask for a deferral in part because the situation with the RAA still contains
many moving parts.
There are two key areas which we would very much appreciate further
clarification and detail through discussion or on the list as follows:
1. As clear as possible definition or specification on what you intend to
achieve with the WHOIS access
2. A better understanding of what is meant by the reference to the RAA
PDP.
This seems to imply that the entire RAA may be the subject of a PDP whereas
clearly there are parts of the RAA that are and parts that are not subject to
the PDP.
Many thanks for any comment or input you are able to provide either on list or
in the meeting itself.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 30 May 2012 16:31
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Motion
On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to introduce the motion attached
to the 07 June council meeting.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|