Hi guys Thanks for absorbing the SSAC document. SSAC have made a conscious effort to include us in their draft-report loop in order to help us with our work, which is very good of them. For the benefit of members of the team who may be sinking under the load of documents to be read, would you mind reproducing the terms that you think we should adopt (in the body of an e-mail), and any _brief_ reasoning which might assist comprehension. Much appreciated, Emily On 28 September 2011 06:45, Smith, Bill <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> wrote:
I support adopting the suggestions re clearly defining data, protocol, etc.
On Sep 27, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Dear Tema Members,
whiole waiting for my flight back home to Europe on Friday, I had the opportunity to consciously read the various documents, already having the considerations of the F2F meeting in my (almost empty :-) ) head.
After doing so, I am wondering what the position of the team is wer the recommendations of the SSAC, specifically to think about adopting their proposals for terminology.
I think adopting the basic suggestions to clearly specify registration data, protocol stuff and directory service/display for the end-user does make a lot of sense.
I am less convinced that the more detailed and specific terminology suggestions and acronyms would really benefit the readers of our final report.
Does anyone have a particular pov or guidance?
Cheers, Wilfried. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.