RE: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
Milton, I think that reasonable people can have different perspectives. I would like us to discuss the options carefully and with full information and participation within the Council. I understand that you have a proposal on that table; there is a different proposal as well, and both deserve consideration. 202-255-7348c mcade@att.com -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:47 AM To: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion 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
Milton, I agree with Marilyn. I disagree with your statement: "I think we already know that One Big Task Force won't work, we tried that with the Whois TF last time." I think the Whois TF worked quite well, and its possible some other people share this feeling. Regards Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@att.com> To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>; <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 11:32 AM Subject: RE: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
Milton,
I think that reasonable people can have different perspectives. I would like us to discuss the options carefully and with full information and participation within the Council. I understand that you have a proposal on that table; there is a different proposal as well, and both deserve consideration.
202-255-7348c mcade@att.com
-----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:47 AM To: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: [whois-sc] ISPCP View on Task Force Discussion
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
participants (2)
-
Antonio Harris -
Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP