Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] slightly amended version of our working draft -- for discussion on the call tomorrow
Just to clarify following our conversation last week and the email below, in the context of a migration from thin to thick, only data that is already publicly available via the registrar Whois is required to be migrated to the registry. There is no requirement whatsoever for data that is being held through a proxy or privacy arrangement to be migrated (in many cases that data may not even held by the registrar but by a third party). Best regards, Marika On 01/10/13 17:14, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hi, > >We did not do that. We decided that we did not have the capacity for >that. > >At the last meeting several issues were raised on which we don't know the >policy implications. E.g. What happens when a registrant (and we are >talking about most of the world's registrant) has a privacy or proxy >arrangement that is not possible (for any number of possible reasons) >with the registry to which the data is being migrated. > >And there were others that I can't get into now, a I am in the middle of >the other meeting. > >So we need the Legal Review as recommended in .1, and the follow up >privacy policy PDP in .3 > >I had not considered whether it would need to gate the initiation of the >transition. That is certainly something that minority report could >recommend, though I would be surprised if we could get consensus on that >here. > >avri > > > > >On 1 Oct 2013, at 10:30, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> >> I don't think I can accept that, at least without significant >>clarification. Saying we want an Issue Report on privacy issues related >>to the migration from thin to thick implicitly delays the migration >>until that PDP is complete, and in fact duplicates exactly part our >>current effort. >> >> Alan >> >> At 01/10/2013 10:07 AM, Tim Ruiz 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.) >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|