Thank you Kim I hope you will be able to join the call, but in the meantime, your feedback is much appreciated - look forward to hearing your further thoughts. kind regards Emily On 31 August 2011 20:05, Kim G. von Arx <kim@vonarx.ca> wrote:
Dear All:
I am not sure if I can make the call tomorrow, but I will certainly try my best to participate. In anticipation of the call, please find below my general comments on the chapters.
1. Peter
I really enjoyed reading your chapter and I think you did an excellent job writing it. There are two concerns that I have:
(a) I feel that the chapter lacks some balance between the different factions privacy vs. full disclosure. I am cognizant of the fact that one side certainly is more vocal than the other, however, I do believe that we need to take extra care to make sure that all the views are equally represented in the discussion. Half way through the chapter, I did get the feeling that it was arguing much more strongly in favour of full disclosure and for commercial and law enforcement interests. While I believe that many of the arguments raised are very valid, I do believe it is important to provide a balanced view on all of the positions that were brought to us.
(b) While I think the recommendations and conclusions are well argued and thought out, I am somewhat concerned by the scope of the recommendations. I do believe that there is an opportunity for the WHOIS policy to be amended to reflect the needs of all the stakeholders and not just to regulate the proxy services. Indeed, in the grand scheme of things, the former would be easier to implement, maintain, and regulate then the latter - I think.
Again, Peter, thank you very much for all the work you did on this. I can only imagine how much time you spent on drafting this and I think you did an excellent job.
2. Kathy
Again, thank you very much for the work and I think you did a bang on job in outlining our approach and methodology. I don't really have any comments with respect to your chapter as it was simply a "pulling together" of the facts, dates, and quotes. This is not to say that it did not take much effort on your part, it is merely meant to say that there is really nothing for me to comment and/or argue about considering that all of the things you mentioned are factual.
3. Sharon
My thanks to you too for all the work you put into this. I know how busy you are in trying to keep our world a saver place for all of us. I actually spent most time on your parts and re-read them a few times to figure out whether I think any of the comments warrant an amendment to our definition. After a lengthy debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I do not believe that our definitions need any amendments. I feel that we found a fairly good balance in our approach to the terms and any amendments to the definitions of those terms would slant the balance into one or the other direction. At this stage, I believe that our definitions have found the best possible balance for all stakeholders concerned.
4. Emily
I am still working through yours.
Kim
__________________________________
*kim@vonarx.ca* *+1 (613) 286-4445*
"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."
_______________________________________________ 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.