[From nobody Sun Nov 23 17:44:34 2025 Return-Path: <owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org> Received: from rly-xb05.mx.aol.com (rly-xb05.mail.aol.com [172.20.64.51]) by air-xb02.mail.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id MAILINXB23-ac43020a6830d; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:47:09 -0400 Received: from greenriver.icann.org (greenriver.icann.org [192.0.35.121]) by rly-xb05.mx.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXB52-ac43020a6830d; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:46:49 -0400 Received: from greenriver.icann.org (greenriver [127.0.0.1]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7GFkg8V006415; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:46:42 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j7GFkgwX006414; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:46:42 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: greenriver.icann.org: majordomo set sender to owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org using -f Received: from pechora.icann.org (pechora.icann.org [192.0.34.35]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7GFkfuX006404; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:46:41 -0700 Received: from pop-borzoi.atl.sa.earthlink.net (pop-borzoi.atl.sa.earthlink.net [207.69.195.70]) by pechora.icann.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j7GFkg8B019954; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:46:43 -0700 Received: from user-12hdube.cable.mindspring.com ([69.22.249.110] helo=total.confusion.net) by pop-borzoi.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1E53eE-0006WM-00; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:46:42 -0400 Received: from nat.register.com ([216.21.238.2] helo=[10.10.27.155]) by total.confusion.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id ILBNTQ-0000AT-J9; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:46:41 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <794B36C9-1B6A-4D25-A166-15F1ECBC030F@confusion.net> Cc: Whois TF mailing list <gnso-dow123@gnso.icann.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@confusion.net> Subject: [gnso-dow123] Regarding Whois TF recommendation on improving notice Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:45:56 -0400 To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, council@gnso.icann.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "localhost", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see postmaster@confusion.net for details. Content preview: Dear Bruce: In discussions of the Whois TF last week, a concern was raised that the current proposal relating to improving notice to registrants regarding the use of their contact details in the Whois system may be viewed as a waiver of registrants privacy rights. It was not the intent of the task force that the recommendation act as any sort of waiver, but this was not an issue that we considered during the work of the task force. There is no agreement in the task force that the current policy recommendations would constitute a waiver, however a number of the members of the task force do believe that this is an important issue and believe that it would be premature for the Council to adopt the policy recommendations without considering it. Although the Task Force did not have time to form an official position on this issue, in light of those concerns, I am writing to request that the Council either: [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 6.5 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org Precedence: discussion X-AOL-IP: 192.0.35.121 Dear Bruce: In discussions of the Whois TF last week, a concern was raised that the current proposal relating to improving notice to registrants regarding the use of their contact details in the Whois system may be viewed as a waiver of registrants privacy rights. It was not the intent of the task force that the recommendation act as any sort of waiver, but this was not an issue that we considered during the work of the task force. There is no agreement in the task force that the current policy recommendations would constitute a waiver, however a number of the members of the task force do believe that this is an important issue and believe that it would be premature for the Council to adopt the policy recommendations without considering it. Although the Task Force did not have time to form an official position on this issue, in light of those concerns, I am writing to request that the Council either: a) Refer the recommendation back to the Task Force for further consideration of this specific issue; alternatively, the Council may want to consider this specific issue itself, or b) Delay adoption of this recommendation until such time as the full range of issues currently being considered by the task force have resulted in a broader set of recommendations that may render this issue moot. Thanks, Jordyn A. Buchanan Chair, Whois TF ]