Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] slightly amended version of our working draft -- for discussion on the call tomorrow

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, I find it a little confusing too. Should we just say, "We recommend that 
the ICANN Board ensure that privacy issues are adequatley adressed within the 
Board initiated PDP on gTLD registration data services or in a separate 
process."

Tim


On Sep 30, 2013, at 6:10 PM, "marie-laure Lemineur" 
<mllemineur@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mllemineur@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Dear Mike,

I find the edits of the last paragraph in both version a little bit confusing 
at the beginning. Once the changes are accepted  it reads as follows,
3) "We recommend that if the ICANN Board concludes privacy issues will not be 
adequately addressed within the scope of the Board - initiated PDP on gTLD 
registration data services , or otherwise be addressed, that the Board, 
initiate such actions as to ensure that privacy issues are fully and adequately 
addressed....."

Am I missing something?

best,

Marie-laure


On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Mike O'Connor 
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
hi all,

Marika and i took a stab at working Alan's suggestions into the draft that 
we'll be reviewing on the call tomorrow.  here's the result of our effort.

mikey




PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)