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

[Rick Wesson <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

consensus, is when almost everyone disagrees with you.

clearly the discussion is heading in the opposite direction because we all
agree that it should. I do not accept your language as proposed as it
ignores previously decided points of which the group finds that there is
wide agreement upon.

-rick


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> (resend, i sent it from the wrong account)
>
> Hi,
>
> While I accept the supportive spirit in which this is offered, I find it a
> little too easy for the issue to be pushed back into the shadows.  Already
> tentatively acquiesced with the words migrating from .1 to .3 given the new
> wording of .1, but don't want to see it fade even further from view.
>
> I would like to counter-offer something that goes back to the previous
> recommendation that there be an issues report, combined with a caveat that
> allows for non duplication of effort.
>
> Something like:
>
> Recommend that the Board request a GNSO issues report on all privacy
> issues related to the migration from Thin to Thick Whois.  If, however, the
> Board believes these issues are being covered within the scope of other
> work which is already  scheduled in another group, then we recommend that
> the Board update the charter of those groups with these issues and inform
> the GNSO of how these issues will be covered.
>
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
> On 30 Sep 2013, at 19:22, 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" <
> 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> 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, HANDLE:
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>