ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [whois-sc] Draft 5 of Task force 2

  • To: "Whois Steering" <whois-sc@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [whois-sc] Draft 5 of Task force 2
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:54:46 +1000
  • Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcOY7Ni6lHc+30eqRHSVQW5uhJ7eAQAAWwSg
  • Thread-topic: [whois-sc] Draft 5 of Task force 2

Hello Steve,


> I see you have modified task 2 so that this task force is not 
> allowed to take into account accuracy or cost, only 
> "applicable privacy, security and
> stability considerations."   You have prefaced this with a 
> commentary that
> lists 5 ways this task force COULD take accuracy into account. 

I don't think I would use the term "not allowed".  I have attempted to
more narrowly define the focus of each task force.

> These contortions would not be necessary if we were to 
> recognize that these issues should be considered together.  
> Instead, this draft (and the others) place them on "parallel 
> tracks" which by definition do not meet. 

I think we agreed that there should be 3 groups working "at the same
time".  Each of these groups will be making public their work "by
definition" as work is carried out using public mailing lists, and each
group will need to be coordinating with their constituencies.  Thus
there should be a natural cross flow of information.

> I am certainly looking forward to seeing your colleagues in 
> the registrary constituency who participate in this task 
> force biting their tongues about cost -- for example, the 
> cost of determining which registrants should be allowed to 
> abstain from providing certain information. Of course if this 
> happens, it only means that the cost issue will be introduced 
> later in the process, and we will have to backtrack to take 
> into account this "new" factor.  Perhaps a partisan of the 
> three task force approach could explain why this is a more 
> efficient way to proceed. 

Yes - cost is an important factor.  In fact this issue is incorporated
into the policy development process.  

For example: Annex A, Section 7 (d)(iv), section 7 (e)(3), and section
11 (d)
"An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including
any financial impact on the constituency; "

Feasibility of implementation is also important - and unfortunately this
occurred near the end of the WHOIS and Transfer task forces with
"implementation working groups" early this year.  Hopefully this can be
taken into account earlier in the process.

> Finally, before this steering group disbands, I would like to 
> thank Bruce for taking on the chairing role which virtually 
> no one else would accept. So the job should not be considered 
> literally "thankless"!  

Thanks.  Certainly from my point of view as a chair, I would prefer
three task forces as it is a heavy burden on one person to chair a
combined task force with multiple important issues.


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