RE: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Be thinking about what goes into an "issues paper" where we identify issues, note what we learned, note that it didn't rise to consensus level or needs more exploration, or more work.... We need to develop that section .. which I've referenced several times. I will take a crack at a draft this week end. BUT not now. Leaves/yard call me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@iipa.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 9:40 AM
To: 'Thomas Roessler'; Karen Elizaga
Cc: nc-whois@dnso.org; Francis Coleman; fcoleman@rochester.rr.com
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft


From my point of view, the open issues include Thomas's proposed
pronunciamento on the proper specific resolution of any future conflict
between national laws and the bulk access provisions of the RAA.  I continue
to think that it is unwise for us to venture onto this very thin ice.    

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 9:15 AM
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>