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 > > > >