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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I personally agree that there are privacy considerations with Whois that have 
been sidelined over and over again. And I personally would like to see this 
taken up by an appropriate PDP. However, I didn't interpret our charter in a 
way that would make Avri's requested recommendation appropriate for 7.1.

That said, after some thought, I would support it as either a primary 
recommendation in 7.1 or as an additional consideration in 7.3.

Tim


On Sep 19, 2013, at 10:55 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.)
> 
>