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

[Rick Wesson <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To warrant a review you will need to offer an example, otherwise its just
policy theater. If you can not offer a concrete example in at least a few
jurisdictions then I do not believe you have a point.

All scientists are worried about the day we discover faster than light
travel; however, we are satisfied that the likely hood of such a discovery
is very low.

with out a single real-world example much less five, you don't have a
theory.

In all my years I've never seen a more vague phrase than ... "may be policy
issues involved in some inter-jurisdictional privacy/proxy scenarios."

If you could just back that up with a fact. My issue is that you have no
facts.


-rick





On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> hi,
>
> Good Point.
>
> Nonetheless, I beleive there may be policy issues involved in some
> inter-jurisdictional privacy/proxy scenarios.  We will only know this after
> the legal review we are requesting.  And the issues report, post legal
> review, will be able to answer the  question of whether there are policy
> issues deliberately, completely and hopefully definitively.
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 1 Oct 2013, at 11:24, Marika Konings wrote:
>
> > 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.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>