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