ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow2tf] Section 1.4 change too far

  • To: "Kathryn Kleiman" <KathrynKL@xxxxxxx>, <Jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Section 1.4 change too far
  • From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:44:19 -0400
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcRDl3NDCWzZgpOaRNSV21rMVdqgsAAUF1Yg
  • Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Section 1.4 change too far

I am not sure how one "recommends a question" so I suggest that the
words "and questions regarding" be dropped.  Otherwise I am fine with
Kathy's changes.   

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of KathrynKL@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:05 PM
To: Jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dow2tf] Section 1.4 change too far

I think the changes being offered to 1.4 need to be turned back a bit.  

First, I support the original language introducing our recommendations
==> "Some changes to the current Whois policy that make up the final
recommendations are as follows..."

I can't support the current language about proposed changes across "all
of ICANN's registries and registrars" because it does not reflect our
discussion and does not reflect our data.  As Team 1 found in its data
research, lots of ccTLDs are responding in different and tangible ways
to their national privacy laws.  Our discussions have always been about
gTLDs, and only a subset of those (e.g., .NAME as different).  So I
think we have to strike this phrase.

If we have to change the phrase above, then I would recommend the
following text: 
   "The Task Force recommends a number of changes to and questions
regarding current WHOIS policy that are intended to reflect this balance
in a resonable and consistent manner. These recommendations are
described in detail.... "

thanks, kathy

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