ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[whois-sc] RE: ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion

  • To: <whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [whois-sc] RE: ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:21:20 +1000
  • Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcOX4jxHbXLxKkZaR/aC1hx2dEwbXQAYLmpg
  • Thread-topic: RE: ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion

I think this may have been misdirected to the full council instead of
the WHOIS Steering Group, so I pass it on in the context of the
discussion thread on the WHOIS Steering Group:

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 12:47 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion

Bruce and Council:

As to the options Bruce laid out, I think we already know
that One Big Task Force won't work, we tried that 
with the Whois TF last time.

I actually thought we had already solved this problem.

We form TF 1 and TF2 separately but simultaneously.
We expect TF1 (data mining) to go faster because
the issues are narrower. TF2 starts with the (easier) notification
issues, but those must be performed separately (and as Bruce notes, WILL
be performed seperatley in any case, because the issues and
investigations are different). By the time TF2 gets around to the hard
issues TF1 may be finished or close to finished. 

When TF2 is finished, we start TF3. We cannot do TF2 and 
TF3 simultaneously, because accuracy issues depend too
heavily on privacy protections. That is, we can't know how
to improve or enforce accuracy until we know what (if any)
opt out rights registrants have.

Hope this is an acceptable plan to everyone. 

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