Overall, I do not have a problem with Bruce's concerns and strategies -- but I not happy at all with the wording of the resolution that he drafted on the fly. I think Rick Weingarten was right to worry.... Regards, Kathy p.s. working on some wording changes... > > I know this is coming late, i.e. after the Council meeting today > in Marrakesh, but just to provide you with some background on > Bruce's thinking. > > --- Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > >Subject: [council] Options for WHOIS purpose > >Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:55:40 +1000 > >From: "Bruce Tonkin" <[log in to unmask]> > >To: "Council GNSO" <[log in to unmask]> > > > >Hello All, > > > >In light of the extensive feedback we have received this week, > >I believe > >we have the following options: > > > >(1) Revise definition of purpose > > > >(2) Keep current definition, but expand on what that > >definition means > > > >(3) Leave definition as is for now, until the task force > >completes its > >work on recommending any changes to WHOIS (e.g changes to what > >is made > >public, and how data that is not public can be accessed by > >legitimate > >users). Then re-evaluate the definition. > > > > > >Lets discuss this further in the Council meeting tomorrow. > > > >In any case, I recommend that the task force continue its > >current work > >program. Any work on purpose should be done at the Council > >level. > > > >Note that in cases where the task force decides to remove > >certain data > >elements from public access, the mechanism to access those > >elements may > >or may not be called part of the WHOIS service in future, and > >may or may > >not use the current port-43 protocol. E.g We may end up with > >a revised > >"WHOIS service", and a separate "Dealing with bad people" > >service, or > >maybe a "Standard WHOIS service" and "Advanced WHOIS service". > > Rather > >than worrying about what it is called for now, or worrying > >about the > >technical protocols, lets focus on the functional aspects. > > > >Regards, > >Bruce Tonkin > > > >