<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi All,<br>
I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to
follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to
share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for
consideration this Tuesday. <br>
<br>
As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely
the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from
staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They
compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy
system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to
fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology--
that was not their goal, and that's fine. <br>
<br>
<i>But is that be our goal? </i>Shouldn't we more fair, neutral,
balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: <br>
- Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not,
it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? <br>
- There might be some people who are happy with the current
proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and
individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes.
Shouldn't we at least ask? <br>
<br>
So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put
together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John
earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to
your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put
together a compilation.<br>
<br>
In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there
is room for a bit more editing here :-).<br>
All the best,<br>
Kathy<br>
</body>
</html>