[nc-whois] RE: [nc-impwhois] Draft WHOIS implementation committee report

[Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>]

Bruce, thank you for pulling together all the input from the last call and
the list.

On a quick read this looks like a useful step forward.  However, with regard
to proposed substitute text on point 3, the issue of 30 days v. 15 days for
a registrant to respond has been debated ad nauseam within the Whois Task
Force over at least the past nine months.  It is the subject of a specific
recommendation in the Task Force final report (that ICANN collect data that
would indicate whether the 15 day time frame in the registrar agreements
should be changed).   It is clear that there is not a consensus in support
of making such a change at this time (although perhaps there could be after
the data collection effort which the Task Force called for).  Accordingly,
this proposal seems to be well outside the scope of what the implementation
committee has been asked to do. 

I will try to provide some more detailed reactions on our call or prior to
it if possible.  

Steve Metalitz 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:53 AM
To: nc-impwhois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-impwhois] Draft WHOIS implementation committee report

Hello All,

Attached is a first draft of the WHOIS implementation committee report for
discussion in the teleconference in 12 hours time.  I won't be reading any
email before then, but I encourage discussion of the report via the email
list over the next 12 hours!.

I have tried to incorporate the major issues in the comments/issues column
of table 2, and I have attempted to suggest some alternative wording of the
recommendations to make them implementable - but still remain consistent
with the underlying principle.  These suggestions were derived from some of
the original Melbourne IT suggestions, and modified following feedback in
the last call and on the list.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin