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

["Balleste, Roy" <rballeste@xxxxxxx>]

Rick,

I think you are missing the point.  You want to disagree with an observation is 
one thing.  Making broad statements on the status of the discussion is totally 
different.
So far, the group has tried to find consensus in a subject that it is not easy. 
 There is a reason why this subject has been in the agenda of ICANN for 10 
years.
That is also why today's meeting was postponed.  I have not lost faith on 
consensus; in the other hand, I agree with Avri's observations.

Roy


From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Wesson
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Thick Whois WG
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] slightly amended version of our working 
draft -- for discussion on the call tomorrow

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