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

["Balleste, Roy" <rballeste@xxxxxxx>]

The way I see it, we now have two questions to answer:

First: 7.1 or 7.3 (I support a recommendation, not a suggestion).  In what 
section, that remains to be decided.
Second: Do we amend Avri's suggested language?  That remains to be decided.

Roy 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:26 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Thick Whois
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1

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.)