ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[dow2tf]

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

Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft

Steve:

Perhaps a way to address your concern without giving the impression that there are changes to the substance of the recommendations would be to borrow from the recommendation in 3.5. Specifically, I might suggest:

"The task force believes that a system that provides different data sets for different uses (also known as "tiered access") may serve as a useful mechanism to balance the privacy interests of registrants with the ongoing need to contact those registrants by other members of the Internet community, subject to reaching consensus on viability, balance of interests and financial feasibility."

The first half of that sentence is verbatim from 3.5, and the last half leaves us with Maggie's original summary of the ongoing questions to be resolved on this issue.

Jordyn

On May 26, 2004, at 12:17 PM, Steve Metalitz wrote:

I believe that the circulated draft language of Sec. 1.4 mis-states the
substance of the recommendation in 3.5, so I recommend that we change
the summary to be consistent with the recommendation.    This is not an
11th hour change to substance.  As we have all agreed, the summary in
sec. 1.4 could not be completed until the recommendations themselves
were completed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 12:12 PM
To: Jordyn A. Buchanan
Cc: Steve Metalitz; 2DOW2tf
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft

On 2004-05-26 11:21:45 -0400, Jordyn Buchanan wrote:

Steve: one thing I notice is that your proposed changes to the tiered
access provision seems to make even further exploration dependent on
resolving viability, financial feasability, etc.
I'm not sure if that's the intent, but that's how it reads right now.


The change also moves the substance of the recommendation from "the
principle is accepted, subject to ..." to "the principle is accepted as
a topic for further exploration."

That's a significant change to the report's substance proposed at the
11th hour, and -- from my reading of what was discussed -- matches
neither the Task Force's discussions, nor the recommendations in section
3. I would recommend that this change
*not* be adopted in the final version of the TF's report.

Regards,
--
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> At-Large Advisory
Committee: http://alac.info/





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