[Rt4-whois] chapter comments resending

[Emily Taylor]

Thank you Kim

I hope you will be able to join the call, but in the meantime, your feedback
is much appreciated - look forward to hearing your further thoughts.

kind regards

Emily

On 31 August 2011 20:05, Kim G. von Arx <kim at vonarx.ca> wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> I am not sure if I can make the call tomorrow, but I will certainly try my
> best to participate.  In anticipation of the call, please find below my
> general comments on the chapters.
>
> 1. Peter
>
> I really enjoyed reading your chapter and I think you did an excellent job
> writing it.  There are two concerns that I have:
>
>  (a)  I feel that the chapter lacks some balance between the different
> factions privacy vs. full disclosure.  I am cognizant of the fact that one
> side certainly is more vocal   than the other, however, I do believe that
> we need to take extra care to make sure that all the views are equally
> represented in the discussion.  Half way through the   chapter, I did get
> the feeling that it was arguing much more strongly in favour of full
> disclosure and for commercial and law enforcement interests.  While I
> believe that   many of the arguments raised are very valid, I do believe
> it is important to provide a balanced view on all of the positions that were
> brought to us.
>
>  (b) While I think the recommendations and conclusions are well argued and
> thought out, I am somewhat concerned by the scope of the recommendations.  I
> do believe that   there is an opportunity for the WHOIS policy to be
> amended to reflect the needs of all the stakeholders and not just to
> regulate the proxy services.  Indeed, in the grand   scheme of things, the
> former would be easier to implement, maintain, and regulate then the latter
> - I think.
>
> Again, Peter, thank you very much for all the work you did on this.  I can
> only imagine how much time you spent on drafting this and I think you did an
> excellent job.
>
> 2. Kathy
>
> Again, thank you very much for the work and I think you did a bang on job
> in outlining our approach and methodology.  I don't really have any comments
> with respect to your  chapter as it was simply a "pulling together" of the
> facts, dates, and quotes.  This is not to say that it did not take much
> effort on your part, it is merely meant to say that there is  really
> nothing for me to comment and/or argue about considering that all of the
> things you mentioned are factual.
>
> 3. Sharon
>
> My thanks to you too for all the work you put into this.  I know how busy
> you are in trying to keep our world a saver place for all of us.  I actually
> spent most time on your parts and  re-read them a few times to figure out
> whether I think any of the comments warrant an amendment to our definition.
>  After a lengthy debate with myself, I reached the conclusion  that I do
> not believe that our definitions need any amendments.  I feel that we found
> a fairly good balance in our approach to the terms and any amendments to the
> definitions of  those terms would slant the balance into one or the other
> direction.  At this stage, I believe that our definitions have found the
> best possible balance for all stakeholders   concerned.
>
> 4. Emily
>
> I am still working through yours.
>
> Kim
>
>
> __________________________________
>
> *kim at vonarx.ca*
> *+1 (613) 286-4445*
>
> "Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>


-- 




*
*

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu

*www.etlaw.co.uk*

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110831/0d8ceb8c/attachment.html