RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
- To: "Maggie Mansourkia" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>, "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "2DOW2tf" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
- From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 16:25:52 -0400
- Cc: "Marilyn Cade" <mcade@xxxxxxx>, "Tom Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcRDXWuWsz49V8ylQayqENbt4fbJMgAAhKWg
- Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Revised draft
I support Maggie's proposed language for the last bullet in section 1.4,
with the editorial suggestion to add the word "and" as shown below.
From: Magnolia Mansourkia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:08 PM
To: 'Jordyn A. Buchanan'; '2DOW2tf'
Cc: Marilyn Cade; Steve Metalitz; Tom Keller; '2DOW2tf'
Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
I think a more accurate description be framed in terms of:
"The task force believes that a system that provides different data sets
for different uses (also known as "tiered access") should be explored to
see if it 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, AND to determine
its viability, balance of interests and financial feasibility."
Finally, I suggest two edits which I hope are non-controversial. Both
are in the "Possible Balances" section of 2.5:
1) Correcting a grammatical error by adding a comma to Jordyn's text re
2) The third paragraph of that section, noting that the final element is
not wholesale accepted.
Please see attached.
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:42 PM
Cc: Marilyn Cade; 'Steve Metalitz'; 'Thomas Keller'; '2DOW2tf'
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft
Let me just add a couple of points that I think may help frame where we
Maggie is correct that there is certainly some additional work
remaining to be done before the tiered access plan can be acted upon.
What we have at this point is a concept, and not something that is ready
to be adopted at the Board (or probably even the Council) level.
It's possible that some or all of our questions have already been
addressed by TF #1, as they're supposed to be focusing on mechanisms of
providing access. Also, we may get useful feedback through the public
comment process. As we have some joint meetings with TF #1 and see the
results of the public comment process, we may be able to start to answer
the questions we've identified and solidify the policy recommendation
prior to the final report being issued.
If not, someone is going to have to do some further work, whether it be
in the form of another PDP or some sort of implementation committee.
Having said all that, I can see how Steve's text could be construed a
bit differently from the policy recommendations in 3.5. This is why I
proposed mirroring the language of the recommendation there in 1.4. Do
people have thoughts on my proposed language from earlier today?
Also, are there thoughts on Steve's proposed modifications to the
national law section in 1.4?
Finally, if you do have changes, please forward them to the list as soon
as possible. We really need to get a final draft distributed and voted
upon to meet our Friday deadline.
On May 26, 2004, at 3:25 PM, Magnolia Mansourkia wrote:
> But wouldn't another task force, study or something be necessary
> anyway to address the viability, cost, etc.?? The point is that until
> we have answers to these questions, we really don't know if the
> concept (which is
> can become a roadmap or policy description (which needs to explored to
> see if it can work).
> I'd like to adopt change that the concept needs more work or
> but I do agree with Jordyn that the goal of further exploration should
> be to answer the unanswered issues noted, not have a multi-leg or
> redundant process in place.
> I also have a couple of edits I'll be forwarding shortly.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Behalf Of Thomas Keller
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:13 PM
> To: Steve Metalitz
> Cc: Jordyn A. Buchanan; 2DOW2tf
> Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft
> To all,
> I believe that the former version reflected the discussions we had
> over the past month very good and therefore object against adopting
> the new changes.
> My interpretation of the DOW is that this taskforce has to recommend a
> solution for the problems identified as in scope of the taskforce and
> not to refer this to yet another taskforce/steeringgroup whatsoever.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong but that is exactly what "a topic of
> further explanation" means to me.
> Am 26.05.2004 schrieb Steve Metalitz:
>> Another alternative would simply be to put a period after
>> The specific questions could be left to sec. 3.5.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:22 AM
>> To: Steve Metalitz
>> Cc: 2DOW2tf
>> Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft
>> I'm hoping others will have an opportunity to review Steve's changes
>> fairly quickly.
>> 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.
>> On May 26, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Steve Metalitz wrote:
>>> Attached please find suggested edits to sec. 1.4 to bring this
>>> closer into line with the content of the recommendations in sec. 3.3
>>> (local law) and 3.5 (tiered access).
>>> Steve Metalitz
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:57 PM
>>> To: '2DOW2tf'
>>> Subject: [dow2tf] Revised draft
>>> Hi all:
>>> Sorry to send out another draft, but Glen was kind enough to provide
>>> me with most of the links listed in the documents. I've added them,
>>> and in the process moved just about all links into footnotes. I
>>> imagine in the HTML version of the document, they'll simply become
>>> This version of the document is also relative to last week's
>>> so if you haven't yet looked at the version from last night, don't
>>> bother. This tracks changes included in that document as well.
>>> <TF 2 sec 1.4 redline sjm 052604.doc>
> (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
> | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
> w w w w