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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

On Oct 1, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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