[council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion

[Antonio Harris]

Milton,

I agree with Marilyn. I disagree with your
statement:
"I think we already know that One Big Task Force won't work,
we tried that with the Whois TF last time."

I think the Whois TF worked quite well, and its possible some
other people share this feeling.

Regards

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade at att.com>
To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>; <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion


> Milton,
>
> I think that reasonable people can have different perspectives. I would
like us to discuss the options
> carefully and with full information and participation within the Council.
I understand that you have a proposal on that table; there is a different
proposal as well, and both deserve consideration.
>
>
> 202-255-7348c
> mcade at att.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:47 AM
> To: Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
>
>
>
> Bruce and Council:
>
> As to the options Bruce laid out, I think we already know
> that One Big Task Force won't work, we tried that
> with the Whois TF last time.
>
> I actually thought we had already solved this problem.
>
> We form TF 1 and TF2 separately but simultaneously.
> We expect TF1 (data mining) to go faster because
> the issues are narrower. TF2 starts with the (easier)
> notification issues, but those must be performed separately
> (and as Bruce notes, WILL be performed seperatley in any
> case, because the issues and investigations are different).
> By the time TF2 gets around to the hard issues TF1 may
> be finished or close to finished.
>
> When TF2 is finished, we start TF3. We cannot do TF2 and
> TF3 simultaneously, because accuracy issues depend too
> heavily on privacy protections. That is, we can't know how
> to improve or enforce accuracy until we know what (if any)
> opt out rights registrants have.
>
> Hope this is an acceptable plan to everyone.
> --MM
>
>