Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] ALMOST there, but we ran out of time

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

As per Mikey's email, please complete the following doodle poll as soon as 
possible: http://www.doodle.com/4hygcgna75kcw7gq.

Thanks,

Marika

From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 4 October 2012 22:33
To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] ALMOST there, but we ran out of time

hi all,

we had a productive call today and just plain ran out of time with one last 
issue unresolved.  i was wavering between pushing a little harder to get the 
draft out the door and giving us more time, and came down on the "more time" 
side at the very end.

so here's my thinking at the moment.

-- it would still be very helpful to for us to hit the Council 
document-submission cutoff (9-Oct) because if we miss this cycle, we cause a 
long decision-making lag due to the impact of the Toronto meeting

-- we're just a drafting team, helping the Council do work that they would 
otherwise have to do themselves.  so our document isn't final anyway -- they 
can amend it.  it's not like the report of a PDP where the Council should send 
the document back to the working group for revisions if they're required.  this 
is supporting the Council in its "manage the PDP process" by helping them write 
a charter.  ultimately the final language of the charter comes from the Council.

-- so let's try to schedule one more call, early next week, to hammer out the 
last remaining issue and then push our draft along to the Council

to that end, Gisella or Marika will be sending along a Doodle poll Real Soon 
Now to see if we can find a time to meet.

meanwhile, i've attached the markup that resulted from the call today.  i've 
highlighted (in yellow) my revised version of the last remaining issue.  i've 
tried to sharpen the language a bit.  here are the "before" and "after versions;

before (submitted by Keith)
Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that ‘thick’ Whois should 
be required for all gTLDs, the PDP WG is also expected to consider:  ...

-       Are existing contact terms between registrars and registrants 
sufficient to permit the transfer of registrant  data to the registry  in 
connection with  a  transition from a ‘thin’ to ‘thick’ Whois?  If not, what is 
the potential impact?

after (revised by Mikey)

Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that ‘thick’ Whois should 
be required for all gTLDs, the PDP WG is also expected to consider:  ...

-       Whether existing contract terms between registrars and registrants 
(Registration Agreements, which include consensus policies by reference) are 
sufficient to permit the transfer of registrant data to the registry in 
connection with a transition from a ‘thin’ to ‘thick’ Whois.  If not, what are 
the potential issues and suggested ways to address them?

thanks,

mikey