ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2

  • To: <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2
  • From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:05:51 -0400
  • Cc: <whois-sc@xxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/14/03 05:13AM >>>
>> b) What 
>> [**REPLACE is the minimum required information about 
>> ** WITH changes, if any, should be made in the data elements] 
>> about registrants that must be collected at the time of registration to
>> maintain adequate contact-ability?

>As this question is phrased now, the answer is "none"; the question
>does not provide useful and clear guidance for future policy-making.
>Answering the question that was originally asked would actually
>generate the kind of input that is needed for a rational policy
>decision.  Please undo this change.

I want to emphasize the importance of what Thomas is saying
here. We can have a real policy debate and discussion of what
data elements are required for contactability while maximizing
privacy. We cannot have such a decision or debate about 
the question as phrased above. Whatever one's policy position,
we need to have a real issue/question before us. 

>> 2. Conduct an analysis of the existing uses of the registrant data
>> elements currently captured as part of the domain name registration
>> process. Develop list of 
>> [** REPLACE minimal ** WITH optimal]
>>  required elements for contact-ability. 

>"optimal" is ill-defined in this context, since it is not clear
>*what* should actually be optimized.  Please keep the original
>wording which actually formulates a well-posed problem.

I agree. However, by using the word "minimal" the old wording was not 
intended to imply that we "will" decide data elements will be
eliminated or reduced, it is simply an attempt to define a 
benchmark. If other constituencies are uncomfortable with
the implications of that word (minimal) I am flexible about changing
it, but the focus of the TF on "what data elements are required"
(no more, no less) MUST be retained. 

>Or is this supposed to mean that "optimal contact-ability" should be
>the target of this task force?

Clearly, it is not. We must focus on the privacy/contactibility 
trade off. That is what this TF is about. Efforts to divert 
attention from that must cease.

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