Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
Many thanks Emily. I am unsure what happened there and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. I will send the attached document to web admin right away and request a prompt update. Thanks for your patience, Best Alice Alice Jansen - ICANN Sent via Blackberry ________________________________ From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk> To: Alice Jansen Cc: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org> Sent: Sat Mar 05 01:36:30 2011 Subject: Call for public comment Hi Alice Sarmad spotted an anomaly between the published version and the one that we asked to be published. Please can you investigate and ensure that the correct version is published. Thanks. It doesn't have the lines wrt WHOIS data.... etc or the Feedback request from the community which asks about whether the definition is too broad or narrow.
Thanks Alice. In my experience, this sort of thing often happens when there have been multiple edits, and I ask all members of the team to let us know as soon as possible if this version (which I believe incorporates the latest comments up until Friday evening my time) has the correct definitions. I do note that there continues to be disagreement on the breadth of the definition of consumer. Again, please let me know if you are unable to live with the version we are putting out to public comment. If so, we could put in a sentence above the definitions to say "The definition of consumer presented here represents a rough consensus at this time. However, we ask the public to note that members of the Review Team have different perspectives on this definition, and in particular how broad or narrow it should be. We ask for public feedback on this point (see question below)" I hope this will satisfy and respect the differences of view expressed on the list, and provide a way forward for us. So, to be clear, I am proposing to publish the paper attached as is. If you would prefer to add this sentence, please let us agree to do so by midnight UTC on Sunday. Kind regards Emily On 5 Mar 2011, at 09:39, Alice Jansen wrote:
Many thanks Emily. I am unsure what happened there and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. I will send the attached document to web admin right away and request a prompt update. Thanks for your patience, Best Alice Alice Jansen - ICANN Sent via Blackberry
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk> To: Alice Jansen Cc: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org> Sent: Sat Mar 05 01:36:30 2011 Subject: Call for public comment
Hi Alice
Sarmad spotted an anomaly between the published version and the one that we asked to be published. Please can you investigate and ensure that the correct version is published. Thanks. It doesn't have the lines wrt WHOIS data.... etc or the Feedback request from the community which asks about whether the definition is too broad or narrow.
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
My sense from the call was that we had reached a compromise, allowing us to reach rough consensus by allowing two definitions of consumer. In the strict/narrow sense, a consumer (of WHOIS data) is one that uses it. So when we talk about a consumer of WHOIS data, I'm happy to have the narrow definition apply. However, when we talk about "consumer trust" the broader definition *must* apply. (my opinion) From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 2:22 AM To: Alice Jansen Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment Thanks Alice. In my experience, this sort of thing often happens when there have been multiple edits, and I ask all members of the team to let us know as soon as possible if this version (which I believe incorporates the latest comments up until Friday evening my time) has the correct definitions. I do note that there continues to be disagreement on the breadth of the definition of consumer. Again, please let me know if you are unable to live with the version we are putting out to public comment. If so, we could put in a sentence above the definitions to say "The definition of consumer presented here represents a rough consensus at this time. However, we ask the public to note that members of the Review Team have different perspectives on this definition, and in particular how broad or narrow it should be. We ask for public feedback on this point (see question below)" I hope this will satisfy and respect the differences of view expressed on the list, and provide a way forward for us. So, to be clear, I am proposing to publish the paper attached as is. If you would prefer to add this sentence, please let us agree to do so by midnight UTC on Sunday.
I agree with Bill From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 08:05 AM To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment My sense from the call was that we had reached a compromise, allowing us to reach rough consensus by allowing two definitions of consumer. In the strict/narrow sense, a consumer (of WHOIS data) is one that uses it. So when we talk about a consumer of WHOIS data, I’m happy to have the narrow definition apply. However, when we talk about “consumer trust” the broader definition *must* apply. (my opinion) From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 2:22 AM To: Alice Jansen Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment Thanks Alice. In my experience, this sort of thing often happens when there have been multiple edits, and I ask all members of the team to let us know as soon as possible if this version (which I believe incorporates the latest comments up until Friday evening my time) has the correct definitions. I do note that there continues to be disagreement on the breadth of the definition of consumer. Again, please let me know if you are unable to live with the version we are putting out to public comment. If so, we could put in a sentence above the definitions to say "The definition of consumer presented here represents a rough consensus at this time. However, we ask the public to note that members of the Review Team have different perspectives on this definition, and in particular how broad or narrow it should be. We ask for public feedback on this point (see question below)" I hope this will satisfy and respect the differences of view expressed on the list, and provide a way forward for us. So, to be clear, I am proposing to publish the paper attached as is. If you would prefer to add this sentence, please let us agree to do so by midnight UTC on Sunday.
That was my understanding also. Kim __________________________________ kim@vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." On 5 Mar 2011, at 13:05, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
I agree with Bill
From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 08:05 AM To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
My sense from the call was that we had reached a compromise, allowing us to reach rough consensus by allowing two definitions of consumer. In the strict/narrow sense, a consumer (of WHOIS data) is one that uses it. So when we talk about a consumer of WHOIS data, I’m happy to have the narrow definition apply.
However, when we talk about “consumer trust” the broader definition *must* apply.
(my opinion)
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 2:22 AM To: Alice Jansen Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
Thanks Alice. In my experience, this sort of thing often happens when there have been multiple edits, and I ask all members of the team to let us know as soon as possible if this version (which I believe incorporates the latest comments up until Friday evening my time) has the correct definitions.
I do note that there continues to be disagreement on the breadth of the definition of consumer. Again, please let me know if you are unable to live with the version we are putting out to public comment. If so, we could put in a sentence above the definitions to say
"The definition of consumer presented here represents a rough consensus at this time. However, we ask the public to note that members of the Review Team have different perspectives on this definition, and in particular how broad or narrow it should be. We ask for public feedback on this point (see question below)"
I hope this will satisfy and respect the differences of view expressed on the list, and provide a way forward for us.
So, to be clear, I am proposing to publish the paper attached as is. If you would prefer to add this sentence, please let us agree to do so by midnight UTC on Sunday. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
I can live with this, Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 09:05:30 To: Emily Taylor<emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>; Alice Jansen<alice.jansen@icann.org> Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org<rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
participants (6)
-
Alice Jansen -
Emily Taylor -
Kim G. von Arx -
lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com -
Smith, Bill -
Susan Kawaguchi