RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Consensus-candidate charter draft

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey, while it seems all quiet on the western front, I thought I would go
ahead and break the ice with this thought for you.  Under Mission and Scope,
it says the following:

"The PDP Working Group is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a policy
recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries,
both existing and future."

Under Objective and Goals it says:

"To develop, at a minimum, an Initial Report and a Final Report addressing
whether there should be a requirement for 'thick' Whois for all gTLD
Registries to be delivered to the GNSO Council, following the processes
described in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual."

Should the Objective and Goals language be altered to be optically
consistent with the Mission and Scope?  For example:

To develop, at a minimum, an Initial Report and a Final Report regarding the
use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future to be
delivered to the GNSO Council, following the processes described in Annex A
of the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual.

Personally, I do not see much distinction between "Mission & Purpose" and
"Objective & Goals".  If others feel same, my thinking is that the two
should read reasonably consistent (one way or another) for less opportunity
to potentially varied differences of interpretation later.

Ray


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:06 AM
To: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT
Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Consensus-candidate charter draft

hi all,

i'm attaching a new draft for you to review.  it would be absolutely
terrific if we could beat this draft up on the list and arrive at consensus
on our next (and hopefully final) call next Thursday.

i'm shipping it without the redlining because the redline history is getting
pretty busy.  but it's all there if you'd like to review the changes in
detail.

here's what's changing;

- i drove that last draft version of the "transition to authoritative"
language in 

- i added a footnote to clarify what we mean by "domains they sponsor"

- i've wandered through the draft and tried to get the capitalization right
on the words registrar and registry 

- i've summarily deleted a couple of Jeff's suggestions -- Jeff, there
wasn't much appetite for them on the last call, so this is your chance to
advocate/persuade if you feel really strongly (although i'll note that this
is really your second chance since you had the opportunity to post to the
list last week as well)

- i've restructured a few sentences to swing them into the active voice and
made a few other (hopefully) cosmetic changes to the language.

let's try to really kick this draft hard so we can polish this off on the
next call -- otherwise Marika tells me we'll miss the deadline for the
Toronto agenda and i'll have to work off my schedule failure as the
lowest-ranked roadie in her rock band.  ;-)

thanks,

mikey