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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

We are just going around in circles. Those that support one view conveniently 
ignor the responses from those of a different view. We have two wordings, let's 
just support one or the other and get on with it.

Tim


On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:03 PM, "Rick Wesson" 
<rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:




On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto: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.

your example is pure theory.

There is no privacy implications for a registrant when moving from a proxy+thin 
registry/registrar model to a proxy+thick model. The privacy is maintained by 
the proxy whereever that is located. The same data is moved that was published 
in the whois by the proxy, there is no magic reveal -- as you implied by the 
move of the publication model for the whois record.

I am concerned that you are confused about the actual data that is moved. 
Please provide more examples of your issues

And there were others that I can't get into now, a I am in the middle of the 
other meeting.

convenient. We await your clarifications. again, more examples please that 
clearly demonstrate your understanding of the privacy implications.

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.


understand that a minority report will need to be crafted by the minority which 
doesn't leave many with a pen. Expect a critical review of your minority 
opinion. Offering a minority report as a delay tactic will not be tolerated so 
you might start circulating your draft ASAP.


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<mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>>  
>> <owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>  on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto: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<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.)
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>