ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [dow3tf] Whois tf 3 draft notes teleconf 3 Nov. 2004

  • To: Brian Darville <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow3tf] Whois tf 3 draft notes teleconf 3 Nov. 2004
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:31:53 -0500
  • Cc: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, metalitz@xxxxxxxx, Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rlehning@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <s189f559.098@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <s189f559.098@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)

Brian Darville wrote:

Noone stated that this is a consensus document at this point. However, based on the telephone conference with Bruce and Steve Metalitz and others, it was my understanding that you were going to raise these issues with the registrar constituency and that you would draft a proposal regarding item C. At least during that call, you indicated that you thought the proposals in sections I. A. and B. were workable. The document is not simply an IPC document. Indeed most of the ideas it contains grew out of input from both you and Bruce Tonkin going back about two months. You are simply wrong in stating that this is an IPC document.

Brian - I'm not sure that I understand the distinction you are making. I apologize if you have misinterpreted our attempts to arrive at a compromise with the IPC as endorsement of your proposal. I remain committed to my promise to advocate the IPC document to the Registrar constituency once I am satisfied that we have settled on suitable language. Development of this language was what I believed we were attempting to undertake with the two informal telephone calls that we had in August and October.

At no time have I indicated any official support for this document and when asked about this exact subject during our last teleconference, I was very clear on my views at that time.

"Brian: Ross have you reviewed sections 1.a and 1.b. I assume that it meets with your approval based on our discussions yesterday? Not speaking on behalf of the registrars, but...

Ross: To be honest Brian, I got your draft late last night, I haven't revisited it since. I'm not raising my hands with objections, which I suppose is positive, but I haven't really read it."

I'm not sure that it is reasonable to conclude that our willingness to have an ad hoc and informal dialogue regarding the contents of this document changes the document's status as an IPC proposal.

I have committed to reviewing this document with my constituency and providing the TF with my comments on your proposal once I have drafted and tabled language for C. This commitment remains unchanged.

Regarding the consensus issue, on yesterday's call the other constituencies present seemed to suggest that this latest draft
is a basis for moving forward, although people generally wanted
the 15-day limit changed to 30 days, and the BC now has provided
some additional comments.

It sounds like there has been some meaningful progress made. This is excellent. I have not listened to the conference call yet, but I hope this is an indication that we are close to coming to a conclusion.

Regarding Item C, we await meaningful input from the Registrar
> Constituency regarding publicizing the WDPRS. It is inconsistent
to say that reports can only come through the WDPRS when that system is not terribly well known.

Yes - you have presented this contention many times. I still do not agree that it is a reasonable or well-founded contention and your repetition hasn't effectively convinced me to the contrary.

The comment regarding Item C that you say is incorrect is based directly on statements you have made.

Which statements are these? I believe the last statement that I made on this issue was specifically this:

"Ross: If the IPC position remains that this is something that must be dealt with via Whois, then it would be most appropriately implemented via the Registry Whois. My preference is that we [instead] deal with this through outreach and education like we do with every other policy."

I believe that I have consistently held this view since the IPC tabled this requirement a few weeks ago. I also believe that I very reasonably agreed to discuss the issue with my constituency and see if we couldn't find a more comfortable common ground. I'm not sure that I could be any clearer on this point and I apologize if you've somehow misconstrued my statement. I'm certain that this must be a simple misunderstanding as the only other possibility is that you are calling me a liar.

Bruce has gotten involved because the Task Force is not making much progress and what little progress we have made probably stems from his
> involvement.

Yes, Bruce's willingness to discuss the IPC proposal and provide feedback has been provided a useful third party perspective on the IPC proposal. But it is my understanding that his participation has been as an individual registrar and that the two telephone conversations that we have had are not a part of the official process. As far as his reasons for getting involved, it might be more appropriate for Bruce to speak for himself on this issue.

At this point, it seems to me you need to get the Registar's position and circulate it.

Yes, I agree - this is consistent with the committment that I made a week ago. Please also remember that I also indicated at this time that I would be travelling this week and not able to fully participate. I'm fully aware of the need to continue to move forward with the work of the task force. I'm not sure that a public admonishment is necessary when we are still moving ahead within the bounds that we both agreed to. If this is inconsistent with your view of our prior discussion, please let me know.



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org

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