Re: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-11-22 08:00:59 -0800, Djolakian, Laurence wrote:

>    Ok, now regarding the substance: I agree with steve and do not
>    think it is wise to write a sentence on any future conflict

What I have in mind is the time period between an adoption of our
current recommendations and the implementation of the results from
the more thorough review we are suggesting and expecting for the
medium to long term.

>    between national laws and the bulk access provisions of the
>    RAA. I refer to the sentence: [To the extent that
>    implementation of the RAA's WHOIS provisions by a contracted
>    party ...]. If there is a consensus on this sentence, I think
>    that it should at least be limited to bulk access.  

The original statement (which could be interpreted very -- too! --
broadly) would benefit from two limitations, in my view:

- A limitation to those issues which are within the scope of the
  Task Force.

- A limitation to the short-term recommendations we are making.

Only the first of these is contained in the text I proposed
yesterday.

I have strong concerns about the idea of further limiting this to
bulk access -- such a limitation could be read as the opposite
recommendation on possible conflicts in other areas within the scope
of the Task Force's work.  I don't think we should make _that_
recommendation (or even generate the impression that we may wish to
make it).

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