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
>
>