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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am willing to accept Avri's suggested wording.

Tim
 
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:51 AM
To: Thick Whois WG
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] slightly amended version of our working 
draft -- for discussion on the call tomorrow

Hi,

I am fine with you definition.

I am just not sure who everyone is disagreeing with, you or me.

And if it is me that everyone disagrees with, fine, I will work with those who 
do agree with me on our minority report.
I understood us to be trying to find the actual consensus point.  But if you 
can call the discussion closed, so be it.

avri


On 1 Oct 2013, at 09:25, Rick Wesson wrote:

> 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.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>