Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Most of these changes are fine with me.

However, I would propose to avoid elaborating on definitions of bulk
access, and just note that the bulk access provisions do not apply
in the "voluntary bulk access" case.

I wouldn't mention .name in the "differentiating among users"
section: Becky's principles are quite general, and don't immediately
lead to the approach taken by .name (although that may indeed be the
only practical approach); relying upon differentiation among access
modes in order to approximate the effects of a differentiation among
users is a concept which is only introduced in the next section.
For this reason, I'd like to keep the note on .name in the access
mode section.

In the section on differentiating among modes of access, "previous
section" refers to the section on differentiating between data
users/data uses, and the principles cited are Becky's principles, so
there is no need to wait for anything. ;-) Maybe the wording should
be made more precise.

Also, I wouldn't go into any specifics on information about the data
user: The information is gathered by the WHOIS provider, and can be
made accessible to registrants.  The conditions under which this
happens should be the topic of further discussion -- for instance,
putting on my European hat again, there may be compliance reasons to
make that kind of information available regardless of whether or not
any "problems" (whatever that means) occur.

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






On 2003-03-06 11:23:46 -0500, Steve Metalitz wrote:
> From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>
> To: 'Thomas Roessler' <roessler@does-not-exist.org>, nc-whois@dnso.org
> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:23:46 -0500 
> Subject: RE: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options
> Envelope-to: roessler@does-not-exist.info
> Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:25:03 +0100
> X-No-Spam: whitelist
> 
> Thanks, Thomas, here are a few suggestions which I would be glad to discuss
> with you or on the call.  
> 
> Steve Metalitz
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:25 AM
> To: nc-whois@dnso.org
> Subject: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options
> 
> 
> Please find attached a first (and naturally incomplete) draft for
> the third part of the privacy issues report. I've tried to keep this
> as high-level as possible, while still outlining major options and
> giving some hints at what should be taken into account in any
> discussion of these options.
> 
> I hope that this is useful as a starting point for our discussions
> today, and for further drafting.
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>