Re: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft?
- To: <dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [dow1tf] Final Preliminary Draft?
- From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 19:44:11 -0400
- Cc: <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Jeff, everyone.
I was literally "in the air" for about 24 hours May 27-28 and
was not able to participate in the final round of comments.
The deadline has passed and in general your preparation of
the final report is fine. There was some misunderstanding
of the "individual use" alternative however which needs to
be cleared up in the final report.
I am sorry that the exigencies of travel made it impossible
for me to comment before now, but I don't think that should
block these changes.
The "individual use" option is not a "list" but a process.
It does not require a "central authority" to maintain a
list and as such is free of many of the objections that
might be raised against the White List alternative.
It does require that ICANN establish a set of procedures
to be followed and a list of approved purposes for
accessing sensitive data.
Thus, the following language needs to change in
Redline Draft p. 12:
"* If there were a White List or Individual Use List,
who would serve as the central authority ("Authority")
that determines the eligibility for entities to be on these lists?"
--strike "or Individual Use List"
"* Does this same Authority maintain the centralized
white-list or Individual Use List database/system?
--strike "or Individual Use List"
"* What are the criteria that the Authority uses to determine
who is eligible to be on either list? "
--replace "either" with "the White" (criteria for Individual
Use is the ability to identify yourself and selection of
an approved purpose)
"* Is there a limit of the number of entities that can be on
the White or Individual Use Lists?"
Since "individual use" is not a list, there is no limit
on the number of entities. This question applies only
to the WL option.
The other important mistake in describing the option
is that individual use certification would not apply to ALL
Whois use, as the current draft implies, but simply to
the sensitive data. As I have said time and again, we
are assuming that nonsensitive data would be accessible
to anyone and everyone as it is now.
>>> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 05/26/04 08:39PM >>>
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
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
<<Whois TF 1 - Preliminary Report v 0.6.doc>> <<Redline 6.doc>>
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Director, Law & Policy
Loudoun Tech Center
46000 Center Oak Plaza
Sterling, VA 20166
p: (571) 434-5772
f: (571) 434-5735