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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sounds much cleaner to me. Alan

At 30/09/2013 07:22 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 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" 
> <<mailto:mllemineur@xxxxxxxxx>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 
> > <<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>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: 
> > <http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for 
> > Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)