>>> Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> 3/5/2007 8:29 AM >>>
>It seems to me that the problem is the closure of the
>process prior to outstanding problems being resolved. 

Not in this case. There are two flaws in your position

1. The registries changed their position because of external pressure,
and believe me they are in a vulnerable position since their entire
business depends on a contract from an organization whose existence is
dependent on the US govt and (in VeriSign's case) whose contract renewal
is directly approved by the USG.  

2. This TF does not need to specify every detail of the OPoC proposal,
that is not in its terms of reference. The issue is the basic policy
principle. The details of OPoC can be specified later by an
implementation task force. 

>The last WHOIS public comment period saw a large
>number of commentators addressing the myriad flaws
>present in both the OPOC and the Special Circumstances
>proposals... yet the TF did absolutely nothing to
>improve the proposals based upon the public feedback. 

The last comment period saw the standard mobilization of intellectual
property lobby, nothing more, nothing less.