[Rt4-whois] Call for public comment

[Kim G. von Arx]

That was my understanding also. 

Kim 

__________________________________

kim at vonarx.ca
+1 (613) 286-4445

"Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."







On 5 Mar 2011, at 13:05, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

> I agree with Bill
>  
> From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 08:05 AM
> To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> 
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org <rt4-whois at icann.org> 
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment 
>  
> My sense from the call was that we had reached a compromise, allowing us to reach rough consensus by allowing two definitions of consumer. In the strict/narrow sense, a consumer (of WHOIS data) is one that uses it. So when we talk about a consumer of WHOIS data, I’m happy to have the narrow definition apply.
>  
> However, when we talk about “consumer trust” the broader definition *must* apply.
>  
> (my opinion)
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 2:22 AM
> To: Alice Jansen
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
>  
> Thanks Alice.  In my experience, this sort of thing often happens when there have been multiple edits, and I ask all members of the team to let us know as soon as possible if this version (which I believe incorporates the latest comments up until Friday evening my time) has the correct definitions.
>  
> I do note that there continues to be disagreement on the breadth of the definition of consumer.  Again, please let me know if you are unable to live with the version we are putting out to public comment.  If so, we could put in a sentence above the definitions to say 
>  
> "The definition of consumer presented here represents a rough consensus at this time. However, we ask the public to note that members of the Review Team have different perspectives on this definition, and in particular how broad or narrow it should be.  We ask for public feedback on this point (see question below)"
>  
> I hope this will satisfy and respect the differences of view expressed on the list, and provide a way forward for us.
>  
> So, to be clear, I am proposing to publish the paper attached as is.  If you would prefer to add this sentence, please let us agree to do so by midnight UTC on Sunday.
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110306/f5252ac1/attachment.html