RE: [registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for Whois TF1

[Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

I don't think that TF1 is focused on technical solutions, though one of our
tasks is to "review general approaches to prevent automated electronic data
mining and ensure that the requirements for access are met", I understand
that technical solutions are out-of-scope, because our DOW says "The task
force should not aim to specify a technical solution".  But the DOW also
says "However, the task force should seek to achieve an understanding of the
various technological means that could be applied to prevent or inhibit data
mining with an eye toward evaluating their impact on other uses and their
compatibility with the currently applicable contracts."

Up until very recently the TF was focused on gathering information, so if we
are "down the wrong path" I don't think it is very far.  Eventually I
suppose all whois TF policy will have to be implemented. And that
implementation will probably have a technical component (and likely others
such as contractual), right?

Now is the time to submit our (the RC's) constituency statement.  If you or
any registrar has any policy recommendations or statements regarding whois
data mining, please send me a note, or post them to the list, and I will
include them in the draft.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:22 PM
To: Paul Stahura
Cc: 'registrars@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for
Whois TF1

On 3/29/2004 1:54 PM Paul Stahura noted that:

> Fellow registrars, please find attached the IPC constituency statement.
> I will be writing a very rough draft of a statement from us for TF1 and
> submitting it to the list shortly.

Paul - a general question about TF1.

Why is the TF focused on specific technical solutions instead of 
desired policy outcomes? No good can come from a technical solution 
specified by a policy committee.

Personally, I have a very big problem with the direction of this TF 
and am very concerned that it has gone a long way down the wrong path.

I strongly recommend that our submission takes a strong position on 
this point. Promoting diversity and competition are key components of 
ICANN's mission. Developing and promoting technical implementations 
are not.

If TF1 is developing requirements that are going to be fed into a 
technical implementation, then that is very much a different thing - 
and if it is, we should recognize it as being different and move 
forward on *those* terms.

-- 


                        -rwr








                 "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                            All life is an experiment.
                             The more experiments you make the better."
						- Ralph Waldo Emerson

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