[dow2tf] RE: section 3.5 of TF2 draft report

["Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>]

There is a similar glitch in the list of questions that concludes
section 3.5 -- a few of the edits that Kathy and I agreed upon, and
which she posted on Sunday, see
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow2tf/msg00296.html, did
not make it into Jordyn's draft.  With those edits, questions (b) and
(c)  read as follows:

b) What contact data should be shown in the protected tier? How will the
data compare with what is now available?  How will the accuracy compare
with what is now available?
 

c) What are the mechanisms available for identifying and authorizing 
those requesting access to protected information? Are those mechanisms
fast? Are they affordable? Are they online? Who will administer them,
using what criteria? 

Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:28 PM
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: Maggie Mansourkia; 2DOW2tf; Marilyn Cade; Tom Keller
Subject: Re: section 2.4 of TF2 draft report

Thanks for pointing this out, Steve.  I'll revise the document to
reflect this change, unless someone objects to it.

Jordyn

On May 26, 2004, at 4:20 PM, Steve Metalitz wrote:

>  I feel compelled to point out that the bullets at the very end of 
> section 2.4 do not reflect the slight modifications that Kathy and I 
> agreed upon over the weekend and I posted to the list Monday morning.
> See http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow2tf/msg00300.html
> Of course I still prefer Jordyn's version, since I originally drafted 
> it, but I wanted to bring this subsequent agreement to your attention,

> and to suggest that folks react to the language in the Monday posting.
>
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:42 PM
> To: Maggie Mansourkia
> Cc: Marilyn Cade; Steve Metalitz; Tom Keller; '2DOW2tf'
> Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft
>
> Let me just add a couple of points that I think may help frame where 
> we
> are:
>
>   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.
>
> Jordyn
>
> 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
>> agreeable)
>> 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 
>> "exploration"
>> 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]
>> On
>> 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.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> tom
>>
>> Am 26.05.2004 schrieb Steve Metalitz:
>>> Another alternative would simply be to put a period after 
>>> "exploration."
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Jordyn
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Steve Metalitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Attached please find suggested edits to sec. 1.4 to bring this 
>>>> summary
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> [mailto: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 
>>>> hyperlinks.
>>>>
>>>> This version of the document is also relative to last week's 
>>>> document,
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Jordyn
>>>>
>>>> <TF 2 sec 1.4 redline sjm 052604.doc>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gruss,
>>
>> tom
>>
>> (__)
>> (OO)_____
>> (oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
>>   | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
>>   w w w  w
>>
>>
>
>
>
>