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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Amr, and Avri, 

Could you clarify a couple of points?  

If the recommendation you think the WG should make pertains to privacy issues 
involved in Whois, isn't that already covered by the Board-initiated PDP?

If the recommendation relates to privacy issues involved in "other GNSO 
policies," as Avri suggested, how does that relate to the scope of work we have 
been asked to do?

I am also confused by Avri's last post.  Does a recommendation from GNSO 
council for a consensus policy have a different status when it comes before the 
Board depending on whether it arose from a PDP initiated by the Board or by the 
Council?  Or are you referring to some other kind of recommendation?  
 
Why would the Council ask the Board to initiate a  PDP (or why would we 
recommend that Council do so)  when Council  has the full capability to do so 
itself and indeed nearly all PDPs have arisen in this manner? 

Thanks for any insights you can provide on these questions.  

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:58 AM
To: Thick Whois
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new 
recommendation


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
>> 
>> 
>