RE: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft?

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeremy,

Please see my comments in ALL CAPS below:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Banks [mailto:Jeremy.Banks@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:08 PM
To: dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft?


Jeff

Comments as requested:

Footnote 9: This is the position of 3 constituencies (IPC, ISPCP and BC)
and needs to be moved into the main body of the text.

THIS IS IN THE MAIN BODY OF THE TEXT (IN THE APPLICABLE SECTION) AS WELL AS
IN THIS FOOTNOTE. 

Footnote 11: I also believe some of the other constituencies support
this position, not just the IPC. If so, this disagreement should be
reflected in the main body of the text.

I HAVE NOT YET HEARD THIS COMMENT FROM THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES.  AT THIS
POINT, I AM GOING TO LEAVE IT IN THE FOOTNOTE.  PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS
JUST THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT.  THIS CAN OBVIOUSLY CHANGE FOR THE FINAL REPORT.

Footnote 17: I believe the statement in the footnote; "we were able to
reach a consensus on which data we believed, at a minimum, would be
considered 'non-sensitive.'" may be inaccurate.  It suggests that all
constituencies supported making determinations about the sensitivity of
data elements. I believe some of the constituencies did not agree with
this.

THIS WAS NOT MY IMPRESSION.  IN FACT, ON THE CALL I SPECIFICALLY ASKED
WHETHER ANYONE DISAGREED WITH THE NON-SENSITIVE DATA WE HAD LISTED.  THE
ONLY ONE THAT EXPRESSED RESERVATION INITIALLY WAS PAUL AND HE LATER TOOK IT
BACK.  I CAN INCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS IN THE SECTION, HOWEVER.  IF ANY OTHER
CONSTITUENCIES FEEL AS JEREMY DOES, LET ME KNOW.

Footnote 18: I also believe some of the other constituencies support
this position, not just the IPC. If so, this disagreement should be
reflected in the main body of the text.

SEE COMMENT FOR FOOTNOTE 11.

Footnote 22:  I also believe some of the other constituencies support
this position, not just the IPC. If so, this disagreement should be
reflected in the main body of the text.

SEE COMMENT FOR FOOTNOTE 11.

Rewording of paragraphs 4 and 5 on page 11 - 8 Approval Process for
Automated Searches to prevent data mining as follows:

Paragraph 4 - A minority of the Task Force constituencies, including
those representing the Non-commercial Constituency, in addition to the
At-Large Advisory Council, believe that the creation of a White List
would be impractical and would place a large burden on the entity
handling requests to be on the White List.  In addition, they do not
believe that any Requestor should be entitled to the Sensitive Data
unless retrieval of such information was pursuant to a formal request by
law enforcement (i.e., subpoena).  

AGREED

Paragraph 5 - A majority of the Task Force constituencies, including
those from the Commercial and Business users, ISPs, gTLD Registries and
Intellectual Property Owners do not fundamentally oppose the "White
List", but believe that it is essential for those legitimate Whois users
to obtain the Sensitive Whois information in a timely and reliable
manner.  Moreover, these representatives questioned whether the cost of
implementing such a system would be one which could be borne by the
current funding models, and encourage that a cost-benefit analysis be
undertaken before any such system is approved and implemented.

AGREED

With regards to voting on the report, I assume we will be doing it
recommendation by recommendation rather than on the entire report? Given
the timelines, I recall this vote was going to be done by e-mail. When
do you anticipate this will take place?

NO VOTE IS PLANNED ON THE PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR OUR TASK FORCE.  A VOTE
WILL CERTAINLY BE TAKEN FOR THE FINAL REPORT.

Regards

Jeremy

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 27 May 2004 01:40
To: 'dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Cc: Neuman, Jeff
Subject: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft?

All,

Below is a redline and clean version of the Preliminary Draft v. 6.  I
believe I have captured all of the comments that were sent.  I ended up
putting most of them in the body of the report and only a few ended up
in
footnotes.  If anyone disagrees with the placement of any of the
footnotes
in this draft, please let me know.  In your comments back, you need to
be
specific as to which footnote you believe should be moved up to the main
body.

One more note, I adopted some of the language from Milton on the 2
alternatives in the White List Discussion.  I also used my Chair's
discretion :) to name the second alternative the "Individual Use List."
You
will see this in the draft as well.

Anyway, I expect most of the comments at this point to be grammatical
and
serious disagreements with the language.  PLEASE HELP WITH THE
GRAMMATICAL
REVIEW AS I AM A LITTLE TO CLOSE TO THIS DRAFT TO CATCH EVERYTHING.
This
needs to be submitted by Friday.

We have been working on this draft for a long time.  Thanks to everyone
for
their hard work in making this a reality!

Also, remember that this is only phase 1.  In the coming weeks we will
need
you all to pay attention to the comments we receive so that we can do a
final draft.

Thanks again!!!!!

 <<Whois TF 1 - Preliminary Report v 0.6.doc>>  <<Redline 6.doc>> 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Director, Law & Policy 
NeuStar, Inc. 
Loudoun Tech Center 
46000 Center Oak Plaza 
Building X 
Sterling, VA 20166 
p: (571) 434-5772 
f: (571) 434-5735 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx