RE: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Thank  you Thomas,

As for the breach of contract, it would be nice if we could get a short
comment from Louis on this before we comment on it.

Kind regards

Abel


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: 22 November 2002 14:15
To: Karen Elizaga
Cc: nc-whois@dnso.org; Francis Coleman; fcoleman@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft


On 2002-11-22 13:40:25 -0000, Karen Elizaga wrote:

> Thanks, everyone, for your comments.  Again, I have tried to 
> incorporate all comments as best I could.

This is mostly fine.  Thanks a lot, Karen!

I'm attaching a version with a number of small changes included (mostly
in an attempt to accomodate Abel's remarks):

- In the sentence "The Task Force has not ruled out elimination...",
  I have inserted a note that the elimination of bulk access
  provisions has been suggested by a number of the comments we have
  received, and is being supported by a number of task force members.

- I have included Abel with the dissenting opinion.

- I have included a variant of Abel's proposed wording below
  3.3.6.4.  I hope this is a little easier to understand than the
  present text.

The single open question from my point of view is, right now, whether we
can find an easy way to make clear that a breach of a bulk access
agreement can be "punished" by ineligibility for further bulk access.

Thanks again,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>