[registrars] Re: [dow3tf] Whois tf 3 draft notes teleconf 3 Nov. 2004

[Ross Wm. Rader]

Brian Darville wrote:

> Noone stated that this is a consensus document at this point.  
> However, based on the telephone conference with Bruce and Steve 
> Metalitz and others, it was my understanding that you were going 
> to raise these issues with the registrar constituency and that 
> you would draft a proposal regarding item C.  At least during 
> that call, you indicated that you thought the proposals in sections 
> I. A. and B. were workable.  The document is not simply an IPC document.  
> Indeed most of the ideas it contains grew out of input from both 
> you and Bruce Tonkin going back about two months.  
> You are simply wrong in stating that this is an IPC document.

Brian - I'm not sure that I understand the distinction you are making. I 
apologize if you have misinterpreted our attempts to arrive at a 
compromise with the IPC as endorsement of your proposal. I remain 
committed to my promise to advocate the IPC document to the Registrar 
constituency once I am satisfied that we have settled on suitable 
language. Development of this language was what I believed we were 
attempting to undertake with the two informal telephone calls that we 
had in August and October.

At no time have I indicated any official support for this document and 
when asked about this exact subject during our last teleconference, I 
was very clear on my views at that time.

"Brian: Ross have you reviewed sections 1.a and 1.b. I assume that it 
meets with your approval based on our discussions yesterday? Not 
speaking on behalf of the registrars, but...

Ross: To be honest Brian, I got your draft late last night, I haven't 
revisited it since. I'm not raising my hands with objections, which I 
suppose is positive, but I haven't really read it."

I'm not sure that it is reasonable to conclude that our willingness to 
have an ad hoc and informal dialogue regarding the contents of this 
document changes the document's status as an IPC proposal.

I have committed to reviewing this document with my constituency and 
providing the TF with my comments on your proposal once I have drafted 
and tabled language for C. This commitment remains unchanged.

> Regarding the consensus issue, on yesterday's call the other 
> constituencies present seemed to suggest that this latest draft
> is a basis for moving forward, although people generally wanted
> the 15-day limit changed to 30 days, and the BC now has provided
> some additional comments.

It sounds like there has been some meaningful progress made. This is 
excellent. I have not listened to the conference call yet, but I hope 
this is an indication that we are close to coming to a conclusion.


> Regarding Item C, we await meaningful input from the Registrar 
 > Constituency regarding publicizing the WDPRS.  It is inconsistent
> to say that reports can only come through the WDPRS when that 
> system is not terribly well known.

Yes - you have presented this contention many times. I still do not 
agree that it is a reasonable or well-founded contention and your 
repetition hasn't effectively convinced me to the contrary.

> 
> The comment regarding Item C that you say is incorrect is based 
> directly on statements you have made.
> 

Which statements are these? I believe the last statement that I made on 
this issue was specifically this:

"Ross: If the IPC position remains that this is something that must be 
dealt with via Whois, then it would be most appropriately implemented 
via the Registry Whois. My preference is that we [instead] deal with 
this through outreach and education like we do with every other policy."

I believe that I have consistently held this view since the IPC tabled 
this requirement a few weeks ago. I also believe that I very reasonably 
agreed to discuss the issue with my constituency and see if we couldn't 
find a more comfortable common ground. I'm not sure that I could be any 
clearer on this point and I apologize if you've somehow misconstrued my 
statement. I'm certain that this must be a simple misunderstanding as 
the only other possibility is that you are calling me a liar.

> Bruce has gotten involved because the Task Force is not making much 
> progress and what little progress we have made probably stems from his 
 > involvement.

Yes, Bruce's willingness to discuss the IPC proposal and provide 
feedback has been provided a useful third party perspective on the IPC 
proposal. But it is my understanding that his participation has been as 
an individual registrar and that the two telephone conversations that we 
have had are not a part of the official process. As far as his reasons 
for getting involved, it might be more appropriate for Bruce to speak 
for himself on this issue.


> At this point, it seems to me you need to get the Registar's position 
> and circulate it.

Yes, I agree - this is consistent with the committment that I made a 
week ago. Please also remember that I also indicated at this time that I 
would be travelling this week and not able to fully participate. I'm 
fully aware of the need to continue to move forward with the work of the 
task force. I'm not sure that a public admonishment is necessary when we 
are still moving ahead within the bounds that we both agreed to. If this 
is inconsistent with your view of our prior discussion, please let me know.

Regards,
-- 





                       -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org