RE: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft

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

What are the ultimate deadlines for all parts of the report, consider
one part certainly is as good as done?
Then what is the order of importance we given to all thoise parts, iow
will some be simply moved forward since they need more research or
feedbakc anyway , or do we try to round-up our advise on all parts.
Finally what is the agenda for Monday's call

Kind regards

Abel


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: 22 November 2002 13:46
To: Karen Elizaga; nc-whois@dnso.org
Cc: Francis Coleman; fcoleman@rochester.rr.com
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft


Note from the co-chair: 

I'll be doing some extensive drafting this week end, myself, I hope.
Assuming all goes well. There are other sections which have to be
drafted, and we need to focus in on the documentation. Some of the TF
members could volunteer to do more in some of those areas.

Rembmer, too, that you need to be able to provide an input from your
constituency -- will you have a constiutency report?

Bret/Troy, can you get in touch with me regarding the BC? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Elizaga [mailto:karen@elizaga.name]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 8:40 AM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Cc: Francis Coleman; fcoleman@rochester.rr.com
Subject: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft


Thanks, everyone, for your comments.  Again, I have tried to incorporate
all comments as best I could.

In response to some of the comments made yesterday, I just wanted to
respond as follows:

1.	Re: Kristy's opt-in concern:  I agree that the survey results
showed that opt-in was largely supported by the respondents, and it
would be my preference to incorporate such a structure into our
recommendation.  However, a point was made early on that opt-out was
probably overlooked as a feasible structure as a result of visceral and
adverse reactions to marketing where NEITHER opt out or opt in have been
made available.  The interim report, as published, contains this
language and therefore has been carried through in this draft - see
3.3.6.3 discussion (the new bullet point simply makes the same point for
further recommendations).  If we want to change our recommendation to
advocate opt-in, then we should discuss.

2.	Re:  Steve's comment on 3.3.6.5:  I modified the section to make
recommendations in 2 scenarios:  (1) if value-added products/services
are deemed to be solely related to marketing, and (2) if they encompass
other research services as he has suggested.  Does it make sense?
Steve, as you surmised, I was not suggesting that we get rid of services
such as those you highlighted; it was simply my interpretation of this
provision as solely related to marketing.

3.	Re:  Thomas's addition of registrars to those who should be
consulted with, I did not include the comment in the first bullet point
since they are included in a bullet point that follows below.

4.	Re:  Abel's comment regarding support for VeriSign (last
substantive paragraph of his email), i did not understand it.  Abel, can
you clarify?

Thanks again.

Regards.
KE

 <<WG 4 Revised 221102.doc>> 

Karen Elizaga
Vice President - Policy
Global Name Registry
125 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QA UK
Tel:  +44 (0)20 7025-2231
Mob:  +44 (0)7740 871-698
Fax:  +44 (0)20 7242-9105
Email:  karen@elizaga.name  
Web:  www.name



Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary
Information and is made available to you because of your interest in our
company.    This information is submitted in confidence and its
disclosure to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or
authorization for disclosure to other parties.
*****************
What's your .name?
Get one at www.name
*****************