Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think there are not only substantive issue as Amr points out, but also a 
recommendation from a PDP WG has a different status from a recommendation for a 
Board WG and commands a different response from the Board if the GNSO Council 
approves the recommendation.


avri


On Sep 5, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
> 
> The issue report posted at the link you provided does indeed mandate the 
> ensuing PDP WG to consider both the ongoing progress of any WHOIS-related 
> Working Groups, and answer any questions pertaining to privacy laws governing 
> transfer of personal data. However, as far as I can tell, this all seems to 
> be in the context of access to and accuracy of domain name registration data. 
> This will create a scope too narrow to include what I believe Avri is 
> suggesting, which should probably list these same two items in an issue 
> report more specific to the transition of WHOIS from "thin" to "thick".
> 
> This seems fitting to me, since we (as per the WG's initial report) lacked 
> the capacity to address this issue conclusively.
> 
> I appreciate any more thoughts you and others might have on this.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Isn't this already covered by the Board-initiated PDP on Whois that will be 
>> launched once the EWG issues its final report, and as to which a preliminary 
>> issues report has already been published?  
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13-en.htm
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:45 AM
>> To: gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new 
>> recommendation
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> We have moved a lot of privacy issues into a heap called - 'to be worked on 
>> later'
>> 
>> I recommend that we include the following recommendation to deal with this 
>> myriad  of issues:
>> 
>> We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the 
>> issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other GNSO policies.
>> 
>> This recommendation would probably require some glue language in a few other 
>> spots in the final report.
>> 
>> The reason for requesting that the Board, as opposed to the GNSO, is the 
>> number of ICANN staff organizations, such as legal, that need to be folded 
>> into any such effort.  It would also give evidence of ICANN's concern about 
>> such issues in this time of great privacy anxiety.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> 
>> Avri Doria
>> 
>> 
>