<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft
As far as I know, opt out was already in place, or IS already in place,
and simply not working.
Abel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Kristy McKee
Sent: 22 November 2002 16:29
To: Karen Elizaga
Cc: nc-whois@dnso.org; Francis Coleman; fcoleman@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] Revised Bulk Access Draft
At 01:40 PM 11/22/2002 +0000, Karen Elizaga wrote:
>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.
Thank you,
I just want us to be clear that we do not have a consensus agreement for
either.
Both need to be evaluated.
More support was received for opt-in.
I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone overlooked opt-out as an option. That needs to
be
changed to state some of the TF or a majority of the TF; but certainly
not all.
(Supporting Opt-Out is supporting spam at all levels, I just don't
understand how anyone could think otherwise.)
Please modify to at least acknowledge that the Task Force does not
believe
opt-out was overlooked. I do not agree that it was overlooked;
therefore
we are definitely lacking at least a small portion of consensus.
Thanks,
~k
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|