ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [whois-sc] DRAFT 3 of Task force 1

  • To: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [whois-sc] DRAFT 3 of Task force 1
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:47:56 +1000
  • Cc: <whois-sc@xxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcOM6/KL4MLul16oS+CdF1EcBHTyzQAUBg7A
  • Thread-topic: [whois-sc] DRAFT 3 of Task force 1

Hello Steve,

Thanks for the feedback.

> Your redline version reflects that the next to last in-scope 
> paragraph was "removed at the request of members of the 
> registrars constituency."  Your first paragraph refers to 
> comments "from registrars that were not directly represented 
> on the call."  My recollection is that there was a 
> representative of the registrar constituency on the call, so 
> I don't understand this reference.  

The registrars reps elected by rhe registrars constituency are Thomas
Keller and Mark Jeftovic.  Neither were on the call to my recollection.
I am not on the committee as a registrars rep, but as an "interim"

The requests to which I referred to were on the public registrars
mailing list.
The relevant postings are:

I think the issue is that registrars do not want another obligation/cost
to provide free searching tools, although registrars may be happy with a
choice of providing either bulk access ot searching tools at some sort
of cost recovery fee.

> Additionally, this 
> deletion was not discussed on the call (as far as I 
> recollect, and your first paragraph seems to indicate that 
> this was the case), so at a minimum I suggest that the reason 
> for the proposed deletion be circulated to the list by the 
> constituency proposing it.  Pending that circulation, I 
> suggest this language be restored.  

A fair request.  I leave it to Thomas Keller or Mark Jeftovic to
comment, and if none is received I will revert it to the previous text.

> The revision to the last in-scope paragraph completely 
> deletes one of its two original foci so my proposed language 
> (in CAPS) would seek to restore that.  I recall that one 
> member of the Steering Group articulated a moral objection to 
> such value-added services, but the existing RAA recognizes 
> that they perform a useful function, and I suggest that the 
> impact of any recommended changes on the viability of such 
> services is an appropriate
> topic for proposed Task Force 1.   

No problem with adding the text you suggested.  It wasn't my intent to
remove that meaning, I was trying to use simpler language (ie implied in
what I proposed), but I agree that it is probably better to be more


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