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

[Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I wrote the note that you mention in your last paragraph. Have the
courtesy to write me directly, or at least call me out by name here, if
you have problems with something I wrote. I chaired the privacy subteam
and approached NCSG members to get their reading of what was going on. I
already had heard from other ST participants. In addition, you apparently
haven't received a forward of the message in which I said that I shouldn't
have made the reputation comment.

As Mikey suggested, maybe some of the communications problems here could
have been avoided if you communicated with the group more often and less
one-one with Mikey.

Don

On 9/19/13 10:54 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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.)
>> 
>
>