[gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] \MP3 THICK WHOIS - Tuesday 08 October 2013

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next  Thick Whois PDP Working Group call will be held on Tuesday 15 October 
2013 at 1400 UTC.

Please find the MP3 recording of the Thick Whois PDP Working Group call held on 
Tuesday 08 October 2013 at 14:00 UTC at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-thick-whois-20131008-en.mp3

On page:  
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#mars>apr>oct

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/


Attendees:
Amr Elsadr - NCSG
Carolyn Hoover - RySG
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Mikey O'Connor - ISPCP
Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC
Roy Balleste - NCUC
Chris George - IPC
Marc Anderson - RySG
Avri Doria - NCSG
Tim Ruiz - RrSG
Alan Greenberg - ALAC
Susan Prosser - RrSG
Don Blumenthal - RySG

Apology : none


ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Lars Hoffmann
Berry Cobb
Glen de St Gery
Nathalie Peregrine

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg/

Wiki page:
https://community.icann.org/x/whgQAg

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Nathalie Peregrine
For GNSO Secretariat

Adobe Chat Transcript for 08 October 2013:

  Marika Konings:Welcome to the Thick Whois WG Meeting of 8 October 2013

  Amr Elsadr:Hi all. Dialling in.

  Amr Elsadr:Joined the call.

  Carolyn Hoover:dialing in

  Marie-laure Lemineur:hi everyone

  steve metalitz:Still waiting to be admitted on call

  Carolyn Hoover:Joining the call

  Carolyn Hoover:on the call

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Marc Anderson is also on the AC room

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Susan Prosser is also on the call

  Marc Anderson:Mikey, you are cutting in and out a lot. (at least for me).

  Mike O'Connor:is that true for everybody?  i'll dial in if it's true

  Amr Elsadr:Yeah. I noticed too.

  Carolyn Hoover:better

  Marc Anderson:better

  Amr Elsadr:You sound better. Louder too. :)

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Roy Balleste has joined the call

  Marika Konings:In relation to Tim's recommendation, should we refer back to 
the relevant section in the report so it is at least clear which privacy issues 
we are referring to?

  Don Blumenthal:absolutely to Alan's comment since privacy will be a major 
part of the EWG report.

  Tim Ruiz:Alan is right, but isn't our hope that the transition to Thick Whois 
in the existing thin registries happens well before that PDP is done?

  Tim Ruiz:That PDP will likely last for years, realisticly.

  Alan Greenberg:Tim, yes. But the request for an issue report of privacy was 
NOT supposed to delay the cutover. The "legal review" was a need prior to 
cutover, but not the IR and following PDP

  Tim Ruiz:@Alan, right. Forgot about the legal review.

  Alan Greenberg:@Arvi. No!  An IR req by the BOard *WILL* lead to a PDP. That 
is in the Bylaws

  Amr Elsadr:@Alan..., the recommendation for an issue report here takes that 
into consideration, requesting that if there is another PDP covering this 
topic, that its charter be ammended to include any issues defined in the IR.

  steve metalitz:Avri speaks as though we have not had a PDP looking at the 
transition from thin to thick.  We have. It is us!

  Amr Elsadr:so not necessarily requesting a seperate/dedicated pdp.

  Roy Balleste:+1Amr

  Alan Greenberg:Don't understand Amr's comment

  Amr Elsadr:Mikey..., could you repeat your last comment?

  Tim Ruiz:@Steve, yeah, but I think we didn't spend the time on the privacy 
that we probably should have - involving experts. If we had, we likely wouldn't 
be where we are now.

  Amr Elsadr:+1 @Tim. ..., and as a result we concluded that we lacked the 
capacity to address the topic as well as our charter required us to.

  Roy Balleste:+1 Amr, Tim, Avri

  steve metalitz:@Avri, your argumetnt for a legal review is irrelevant to the 
7.3 issue.

  Tim Ruiz:@Alan, an IR does not necessarily lead to a PDP. The IR could just 
as well recommend that a PDP is not warranted.

  Alan Greenberg:Time, a nice throry but NOT what the Bylaws say.

  Alan Greenberg:Tim....

  Tim Ruiz:Alan...

  Tim Ruiz:;-)

  Marika Konings:@Tim - in the case of the Board initiated PDP, Alan is 
correct, a PDP would automatically be initiated (I guess unless the Board would 
'undo' their request - but this is indeed unchartered territory)

  Tim Ruiz:@Alan, that is what the bylaws say as I read them. The IR is what 
determines whether a PDP is necessary or not, among other things.

  Tim Ruiz:@Marika, yes, a Board initiated PDP, but not necessarily a Board 
request for an IR.

  Marika Konings:@Tim - I think we consider the Board request for an Issue 
Report as the starting point of the PDP, i.e. it automatically leads to the 
initiation of a PDP (there is no separate step in which the Board initiates a 
PDP)

  Tim Ruiz:@Marika, I don't think that was the intent of the bylaws. Otherwise, 
what is the point of the IR?

  Marika Konings:To Mikey's comments, the WG could consider rewording the 
recommendation to note that if the legal review identifies any policy issues, 
the GNSO Council is expected to  request an Issue Report on the policy issues 
identified?

  Don Blumenthal:time to go tomthe airport. if this were a public meeting, I 
would call the question. Time 5o move on

  Marika Konings:@Tim - the issue report would include a recommendation on 
whether or not to initiate a PDP, so based on that feedback the Board could 
presumably still change its mind on whether the next step should be initiated. 
But again, it is unchartered territory ;-)

  Tim Ruiz:We just need some legal or privacy experts to take a look at this. 
Non one is this WG has presented any credentials that show they meet that, and 
we did not bring any experts in to review it. So the Legal review in 7.3 is 
essential IMHO, and I am at least glad that we are not questioning that any 
longer.

  Tim Ruiz:Meant - no one in this WG

  Tim Ruiz:Also meant 7.1 - geesh!

  steve metalitz:@Amr, how does Alan or Tim's formulation not satisfy your 
concern?

  Tim Ruiz:Regarding 7.3 I am good with any of the options, although I think 
mine or Alan's seem to have the most agreement.

  Amr Elsadr:@Steve..., because I would like to see the topic of privacy 
addressed as aggressively as the recommendation to make the transition from 
thin to thick. It is the only topic we were chartered to address that was not 
conclusive in its findings. I would like the work to be picked up responsibly 
again.

  Marika Konings:I believe the WG does recommend the creation of an 
Implementation Review Team so there would be a mechanism to bring issues back 
to the GNSO Council

  Amr Elsadr:@Steve: The recommendation made by Alan and tweaked by Tim asks 
the BoD to address this without an exhaustive study of the issue first.

  Tim Ruiz:If the decision is to go with my wording, I am fine with qualifying 
it to apply to the transition as well as the addition of the GNSO process.

  Marika Konings:The PDP Manual also says that 'If the proposed implementation 
is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council'srecommendations, the GNSO 
Council may notify the Board and request that the Board review theproposed 
implementation. Until the Board has considered the GNSO Council request, ICANN 
Staffshould refrain from implementing the policy, although it may continue 
developing the details of theproposed implementation while the Board considers 
the GNSO Council request.'

  steve metalitz:@Amr, we reached a conclusion on privacy in the transition to 
thick, and we are discussing backing that up with a legal review.  7.3 deals 
with privacy issue that are outside the scope of this PDP.

  Amr Elsadr:@Marika: What inconsistency are you referring to?

 Marika Konings:@Amr - this relates to the implementation - if the GNSO Council 
is of the view that the implementation is inconsistent with the policy 
recommendations, it has a mechanism to flag this with the Board.

  Tim Ruiz:Let's call this. Make a decision, call for consensus, whatever.

  steve metalitz:@Mikey, "please put yourself in the queue".

  Marie-laure Lemineur:apologies

  Amr Elsadr:+1@ML. :)

  Amr Elsadr:Is there a reference on how the legal review works exactly? The 
process?

  steve metalitz:@Alan, your frustratin is understandable because you are 
shadowboxing with phantoms.

  Alan Greenberg:Fine. Lety's ask for that legal review nad get it now!

  Avri Doria:i thought that was a good sentence.  sorry to see it go.

  Carolyn Hoover:I have to leave; will listen to the mp3

  Marie-laure Lemineur:i am not that familiar with what a IRT can or can not do 
sorry.

  Marie-laure Lemineur:i need to do some more reading..

  steve metalitz:Sorry, definitely cannot devote more than 60 minutes to this 
this morning.

  Amr Elsadr:Where are the flags raised?? How are they addressed? That's my 
question, I guess.

  Avri Doria:an interactive relationsship betwee legal researching the issue 
and the implementation team would be a good thing.

  Amr Elsadr::)

  Amr Elsadr:Thnx Mikey.

  Marie-laure Lemineur:agree Mickey

  Avri Doria:i do not beleive this a waste of time.

  Roy Balleste:Thank you!

  Marie-laure Lemineur:thanks bye

  Avri Doria:bye

  Amr Elsadr:Bye.

  Tim Ruiz:Bye, thanks.

  Susan Prosser:bye