Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I was not making that recommendation in this compromise position.  I.e I think 
that moving to Thick Whois is harmful for registrants from regions with better 
policy regimes. I beleive this is a general NCSG position on thick whois.  But 
I also beleive that once we understand these considerations, we may be able to 
make the conditions under which thick Whois works for all thick whois 
registrants, including those in the new gTLDS.  So I am willing to accept as a 
compromise that there is an ICANn consensus of moving incumbents to a thick 
model, but only if the work of privacy issue is begun without further delay.  I 
am not sure that NCSG will accept this compromise, but I will argue for it if 
the recommendation is put in 7.1

On the other hand it could indeed be part of the minority recommendation if the 
compromise is not accepted.  In general NCSG is agains the move to Thick Whois 
by ICANN.  We are aware we are in a minority, but we still beleie it is our 
duty to argue for protection of non commercial registrants.


avri


On 19 Sep 2013, at 11:06, George, Christopher E wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> Does your recommendation intend that any move to a Thick WHOIS be delayed 
> pending the conclusion of a GNSO report on Privacy/etc?  It's not clear to me 
> from the below how the timing would work.
> 
> Chris 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:55 AM
> To: Thick Whois
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> For me this needs to be a Recommendation (7.1, big R), not an extra 
> consideration.  This issue was within the purview of the group and the group 
> bailed on it for lack of capability.  Fine, then lets step and recommend that 
> those that have the capability do so.    In this age of world attention on 
> privacy issues, I can't beleive we are still dancing around the point.
> 
> I am currently working on getting the NCSG to endorse this.  As the alternate 
> chair of the NCSG Policy committee I beleive this is something that will be 
> supported by the NCSG.  I will personally submit a minority position and work 
> to get the NCSG to endorse it, if this recommendation is not included in 7.1. 
>  For myself at this point, I will reject the entire report without this, as 
> the report is incomplete without this as a primary Recommendation.  To my 
> mind NCSG would be shirking it responsibilities if we let this report go out 
> without such a recommendation.
> 
> Incidentally, my impression from the list discussion was that there was 
> support, but that wording needed changing.  It was changed.
> 
> I understand that there are those who may be playing divide and conquer games 
> behind the scenes, claiming that my position will hurt NCSG's reputation.  I 
> have bcc'e d the NCSG on this note so that they themselves can determine if 
> it is reputation damaging.  There are others who are are cynically claiming 
> that I am going against the bottom-up model by insisting on privacy 
> considerations.  I reject those claims.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 19 Sep 2013, at 10:25, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> i may have been the culprit here.  Avri, my interpretation of the desultory 
>> conversation on the list was that there *wasn't* much support for the idea.  
>> and then when you didn't show up on last week's call to pitch/push it, i 
>> forgot to bring it up.  my bad -- sorry about that.
>> 
>> let's try to have a vigorous conversation about this on the list, and drive 
>> to a conclusion on the call next week.
>> 
>> Avri, you and i had a one-to-one email exchange about this and i suggested 
>> that this recommendation might fit better, and be more widely accepted, if 
>> it was in the privacy and data protection part of our report (Section 7.3).  
>> could you give us an indication of whether acceptance of this version of the 
>> recommendation is required?  in more casual terms, is there any wiggle room 
>> here?  i think it would be helpful for the rest of the group to know the 
>> framework for the conversation.
>> 
>> carry on folks,
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 18, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I was disappointed to not see the recommendation for the Issues report 
>>> included in 7.1.    I thought we had discussed it on this list and thee had 
>>> been little opposition, though there was some.  I cannot support this 
>>> report with a strong recommendation for follow on work on the Privacy 
>>> issues.  And, contrary to what others may beleive, I do not see any such 
>>> work currently ongoing in ICANN.  I think it i s unfortunate that we keep 
>>> pushing off this work and are not willing to face it directly.  I beleive I 
>>> have the support of others in the NCSG, though the content of a minority 
>>> statement has yet to be decided on.
>>> 
>>> While still somewhat inadequate, I am ready to argue for going along with 
>>> consensus on this document if the following is included in 7.1:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The WG  discussed many of the issues involved in moving from having a 
>>> registration currently governed under the privacy rules by one jurisdiction 
>>> in a thick whois to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Registry 
>>> in a thick whois.  The WG did not feel it was competent to fully discuss 
>>> these privacy issues and was not able to fully separate the privacy issues 
>>> involved in such a move from the general privacy issues that need to be 
>>> resolved in Whois.  there was also concern with intersection with other 
>>> related Privacy issues that ICANN currently needs to work on.  The Working 
>>> group therefore makes the following recommendation:
>>> 
>>> . We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover 
>>> the issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other related GNSO policies.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>> 
> 
> 
>