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