[nc-whois] correction -- NOT yet defunct WHOIS TF -- we don't get off THAT easy!

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

Team,

I think there was a misunderstanding and let's correct it for the record, and 
for all of us. And I support my co-chair's feedback regarding procedures related to 
communications on belalf of the TF. 


We presented the Issues report, which was sent to Staff for drafting. The Non-Commercial
privacy advocacy piece was also forwarded to the Staff at the same time. Staff how has 
an assignment and then will return a document to Council.

Secondly, we are committed to finalizing our background piece and have until 4/30 to do so.

So, Tony and I want to check your calendars for the next two -- and final meetings of the TF. In other
words, WE aren't actually "defunct" yet. :-) 

Our final work together is now to complete  finalizing our background document. Thomas and I have emailed each other about
time frames... And, Kristy and Ram and Tony and I need to talk about what your wrap up will be... it can be incorporated into the Background document, if that seems the most appropriate... 

I'd like to have a edit from anyone into us by CoB Thursday of this week on the last 
version of the background document I distributed. Thomas, you had some extensive suggestions as well.

Then, I'll ask Glen to post working dates for two final calls. 

THEN, the co-chairs will announce the closing of the TF, in conjunction with the Council staff and chair.

Marilyn

 


-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Harris [mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:02 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
Subject: Fw: [nc-whois] TR: [Views On] New WHOIS Database Rules 


Marilyn,

What do you think ?

Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>
To: <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>; <nc-whois@dnso.org>; "Ruchika Agrawal"
<agrawal@epic.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] TR: [Views On] New WHOIS Database Rules


> Ruchika,
>
> It is not clear whether or not you replied directly to
> Bob Keller, as the message below is not addressed
> to him. Nonetheless, I dont recall instances wherein
> individual members of the Whois Task Force
> took it upon themselves to reply to comments
> received, and airing their views in that response.
>
> I realize it has been difficult for you to accomodate to
> working with a group, but even the "defunct" status with
> which you qualify the Whois Task Force, does not
> free the floor for you to assume the role of spokesman
> (spokeswoman?) for Whois matters.
>
> Since the original message was directed to the DNSO
> Secretariat, I would like other opinions from the "defunct"
> Whois Task Force members on the appropriate response
> to Bob Keller (for the record I agree with his views), if
> any procedural action is in order. If Bob Keller received
> Ruchika's reply, then I would propose we send a
> response that thanks him for his contribution and encourages
> him to stay tuned to further work on Privacy issues.
>
> Tony Harris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ruchika Agrawal" <agrawal@epic.org>
> To: <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>; <nc-whois@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [nc-whois] TR: [Views On] New WHOIS Database Rules
>
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Keller,
> >
> > While your opinion/perspective is appreciated, policy-development for
> WHOIS
> > is not as simple as you've suggested below.  ;)  Please see the Privacy
> > Issues Report
> <http://www.epic.org/privacy/whois/privacy_issues_report.pdf>
> > submitted by the non-commercial constituency - it discusses other types
of
> > domain name registrants and other issues that should be considered in
> > determining appropriate WHOIS policy.
> >
> > The WHOIS Task Force is now defunct.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ruchika
> >
> > At 09:17 AM 4/8/2003 +0200, DNSO SECRETARIAT wrote:
> >
> >
> > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > >De : Bob Keller [mailto:bob@bobknet.com]
> > >Envoye : mardi 8 avril 2003 01:09
> > >A : secretariat@dnso.org
> > >Objet : New WHOIS Database Rules
> > >
> > >
> > >Ladies & Gentlemen,
> > >
> > >While I support the efforts to achieve a modicum of privacy in WHOIS
> > >lookups, I think it is also important to have "some" basic and
essential
> > >information on Domain ownership available to the public.  For example,
in
> > >doing business on the Internet, I believe it's important to be able to
> look
> > >up who owns a company web site, and where they are located -- for this
> > >often has a bearing on whether I choose to do business with the company
> or
> > >not.
> > >
> > >If the Domain Name is registered to a business, or if the domain is
> > >registered to an individual who is doing business on the Internet, why
> > >would any legitimate business or business owner NOT want ALL of the
> > >pertinent information relevant to the business to be available to the
> > >public?  I would certainly be suspicious of any business that would
> > >not.  Full disclosure of company information should therefore be
> mandatory
> > >in these cases.
> > >
> > >However, if a domain is registered to an individual and the site is
being
> > >used for purely for non-commercial purposes, I support restricting the
> > >available WHOIS ownership information to Name, City and State only --
IF
> > >the individual desires such privacy.   It should be at the individual's
> > >option to have the balance of the domain registration information
> > >displayed.  Technical contact information should be displayed in its
> > >entirety, since this is often needed to contact web site or E-mail
> > >administrators, in the event of malfunctions.
> > >
> > >Thank you for reviewing my comments.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >Bob Keller
> >
>
>