RE: [nc-whois] Revised outline...

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

Abel, this is a short call with some review of what Ruchika has drafted. Reviwing the revised and expanded outline,
talking about dates/deadlines, We will have our usual 2 hour working call next  Tuesday. 

I know this wasn't a planned call. We regret missing you. thanks for the written input!

-----Original Message-----
From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:17 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; 'NC-WHOIS (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Revised outline...


You seem to have a nack to pick out the times I can really not free
myself to attend the calls, alas I can not drop my work so yet again
must miss a call.

I have however read what was circulated and assume this was complete.

I must say that most strikingly we miss the base for what we are
intending to do.

In order to even discuss tiered access, local privacy regulations and
other "issues" we have a few main "issues" to ascertain before the next
part (current content) can be disussed.

It is my opinion that before deciding upon contractual obligations,
possible changes, access methods, public or semi-public data and tiered
access, we should define who has the "right" to access, for what reason
that access should be given and what is "legitimate" access.

The topic is touched time and again, and overflowed by others, but
remains more important then the ones we are discussing.

Without ascertaining who has a right based on what to what, it is a
strange discussion to have one about ways of access.

Port 43 mining would be abandoned if "barebone" data (name of
registrant, tech email, dns) was given, since the mining would not be
worth while, otherwise whois distributors and whois dbase owners and
such will have to go to extreme lenghts (cost factor) to "stop" or
"slow" the mining.

The discussion about who has a "right" to the data, either by law (which
law) or by contract (with who) it the foremost important, once that one
is settled we can discuss the follow-up steps on how to distribute that
right, and yet be with what remains true to the spirit of the internet
or any applicable law.

Outcome of an issue report that does not prioritise these items in the
right order is in my opinion a waste of time and not really very usefull
for successors or even the TF should it remain as it is.

I urge you to enter the discussion of who uses it currently, for what
reason, with what legitimacy and who should, who has the right, what
right, what law, before entering into possible tiered access-rights and
such.

With kind regards

Abel 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
> Sent: 06 March 2003 16:48
> To: NC-WHOIS (E-mail)
> Subject: [nc-whois] Revised outline...
> 
> 
>  <<issues-privacy-outline revd with changes.doc>> 
> I am working on filling in some of the blanks. Becky, can we 
> get a summary from you of your "approach" as one of the 
> "possible approaches?" I think we could also have a very 
> short summary of .name approach, with an explanation that it 
> is a sponsored, restricted gTLD and the TF is not 
> generalizing, but is providing the summary for informational purposes.
>