ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [dow3tf] Registrar amendments to IPC draft

  • To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [dow3tf] Registrar amendments to IPC draft
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:45:42 -0400
  • Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx, dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <41757580.5060607@tucows.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <s1753925.020@thoth.oblon.com> <41757580.5060607@tucows.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)

Hash: SHA1

On 19/10/2004 4:13 PM Ross Wm. Rader noted that;
| On 19/10/2004 3:55 PM Brian Darville noted that;
| | Ross:
| |
| | You should not assume acceptance from silence.  The IPC views the
| changes as greatly diminishing any meaningful progress on data accuracy
| so I don't think many members of the IPC view your proposed changes as
| progress.  We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow.
| Are there any specifics that we could cover in advance? We don't seem to
| be making much progress discussing these proposals 40 minutes at a time
| every seven days. We might be able to cover more if we relied more
| heavily on the mailing list and other resources at our disposal.

In considering Brian's comments, I was troubled by his contention that the registrar constituency amendments to the IPC proposal are "greatly diminishing any meaningful progress on data accuracy" and that our views ~ don't count towards "progress".

Although my preference would have been to start drawing out details
supporting this contention prior to the call, it appears that this is
not going to happen. Given a definite need to deal with the substance of
the amended IPC proposal in the context of the existing policy, I have
drawn up a quick comparative analysis of the existing policy and amended
IPC proposal (attached). This document clearly outlines where the
existing policy leaves off, where the amended IPC proposal extends the
current policies and precisely where the amended IPC proposal makes
progress towards the goal of whois data accuracy is being made.

In light of this analysis, I would like to hear specifically from the
IPC regarding how the changes to IPC proposal are "greatly diminishing
any meaningful progress on data accuracy" on the call today.

It is my view that the IPC contention is rhetorical and not factual and
unless the IPC illustrates otherwise, I would like to request that the
TF move forward with crafting final policy recommendations based on the
amended IPC proposal and forward them to the Council as soon as is
practicable for further action.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,
- --

~ -rwr

~ "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, ~ every utensil, every article designed for use, of each ~ and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." ~ - Robert Collier

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)


Attachment: whois-tf3-amendedIPC-comparison-10202004.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet

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