Hello, I want to support the idea of three separate taskforces as well. Since the scope of the identified areas is too big to be dealt with at the same time I would prefere one for each area. Whether this taskforces should be simultaneously or not should be the decision of the GNSO council after reviewing the resources of the participating constituencies. It might be worthwile noting that any constituency is free to delegate the work on this taskforces to different people in their constituency. I personally don't believe that one sole taskforce will be able to deal with the whole complexity of this issue in a reasonable time. Best, tom Am 21.10.2003 schrieb Milton Mueller:

Bruce and Council:

As to the options Bruce laid out, I think we already know that One Big Task Force won't work, we tried that with the Whois TF last time.

I actually thought we had already solved this problem.

We form TF 1 and TF2 separately but simultaneously. We expect TF1 (data mining) to go faster because the issues are narrower. TF2 starts with the (easier) notification issues, but those must be performed separately (and as Bruce notes, WILL be performed seperatley in any case, because the issues and investigations are different). By the time TF2 gets around to the hard issues TF1 may be finished or close to finished.

When TF2 is finished, we start TF3. We cannot do TF2 and TF3 simultaneously, because accuracy issues depend too heavily on privacy protections. That is, we can't know how to improve or enforce accuracy until we know what (if any) opt out rights registrants have.

Hope this is an acceptable plan to everyone. --MM

Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w