RE: FW: [nc-whois] Revised Draft on Bulk Access

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Very good job Thomas, 

Some remarks:

Page 3 final paragraph states:

"The Task Force has not ruled out elimination of the current bulk access
provision; however, in this document we have focused on modifications of
the current RAA"

I think the following would do more honour to the task force's consensus
opinion:

"The task force would adher to elimination of the current bulk access
provision, however since this is not expected on short term we have
focussed et cetera"


Also:

I subscribe to your dissenting opinion.


Finally the "hard to understand" first part of 3.3.6.4:

"This requirement is important to ensure that its database does not
generate dangerous high-volume process that could result from
"legitimate" uses of the WHOIS data and unsolicited marketing
practices."

This requirement is important to ensure that registrars/registry servers
and bandwidth capacity are not endangered by high-volume "legitimate"
usage (whois data, unsolicited marketing prcatices) produced by
automated processes.

<comment> this was written to support Verisign in her stance that the
high volume of traffic probing for released domains and sunsequently
making register attempts on those that were probed available interrupted
her "normal" duties and hence required her to stop with deletion of
domains no longer in use. </comment>

Kind regards

Abel




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: 21 November 2002 22:37
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: 'nc-whois@dnso.org'; 'fcoleman@gnr.com'
Subject: Re: FW: [nc-whois] Revised Draft on Bulk Access


On 2002-11-21 16:00:32 -0500, Steve Metalitz wrote:

> I think Karen's draft moves us much nearer the finish line!  Here are 
> a few suggested edits.

Thanks.  I'm appending some more edits.  Besides a number of minor
editorial changes, I have made the following modifications:

- I don't think we should call for "vigorous" enforcement in a
  context where national regulatory environments may produce
  problems.  I have replaced "vigorous" by "reasonable", and added a
  national caveat in the earlier part of the relevant sentence.
  
- In the first bullet point under 4. (mid-to-long recommendations),
  I have added "registrars offering bulk access" to the parties to
  be consulted.  Also, I have replaced "are considered 'legitimate'"
  by "should be considered 'legitimate'".  (That change is in a
  couple of more places, too.)

- I have removed the "risks" from the third bullet point, and added
  the "impact" of applicable law.  "Current and existing" laws
  sounds a bit redundant, so I have removed it.

- In the "discussion/consensus process" chapter, I have added the
  words "within the scope of ICANN's mission" behind "what
  legitimate purposes".  After all, ICANN has not much of a business
  in fostering uses beyond its mission.

- I have a concern with Steve's deletion of the "Clearly, there
  cannot be" paragraph.  I have added alternative language which is
  more focused to the WHOIS provisions than Karen's original
  suggestion.

- Concerning the survey results, I think that we did get a
  significant concern from much of the comments and from questions
  16+.  People just didn't identify privacy as their number 1
  concern.  I have changed the text accordingly.

- I have made the "business models" change I suggested in my earlier
  message.

- I have added a dissenting opinion on the fee cap.  Of course, I'd
  prefer to have that remark incorporated with the body of the text.

- I have added an enforceability caveat which recommends future
  monitoring and review efforts in the end of the recommendations on
  3.3.6.3.  Besides that, I'm fine with the proposed modifications
  of 3.3.6.3.  It may indeed be the best place to implement our
  recommendation (as opposed to 3.3.6.1, which was what I thought
  about initially -- note that I no longer recommend any deletion of
  3.3.6.3 as revised).

- I don't like the first sentence of the text following 3.3.6.4, but
  I don't have good wording, either.
  
- I have tried to further clarify some of the discussion following
  3.3.6.6.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>