Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Revised language for review -- and a goal that we try to wrap this up by the end of the week

[Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>]

I am OK with this language also with one minor question/tweak. I assume that 
the EWG memo is public since it was on our mailing list. Correct? We should 
give it a more specific subject/date reference.

From: Michael O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:24 AM
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Thick Thin PDP 
<gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Revised language for review -- and a goal that 
we try to wrap this up by the end of the week

thanks Marika, i can live with this draft.

dear all -- please take a hard look at this language and see whether we are at 
the point where we can all say "i can live with this."  i'd like to put a 
little pressure on us to try to wrap this up on the list this week -- because 
the deadline for the submitting our final report for consideration by the 
Council is end of day (UTC) next Monday.

i'm comfortable wrapping this up on the list for a couple reasons.  first, our 
agenda for the last month has been to review the status of consensus about the 
draft report -- so people have had ample opportunity to review it.  we're also 
likely to lose a fair number of people next week to the IGF meetings, including 
Avri.  so i'd like to focus this conversation on the list and see if we can get 
it done without another call.  as always, this isn't a hard deadline, just a 
goal.  but my sense is that we are pretty close and i think i share the view of 
most of us that it would be great if we could push this out.

i imagine this language isn't perfect, but i'm hopeful that it's close enough.  
thanks for your patience.  let's see if we can wrap this one up.

thanks,

mikey


On Oct 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Dear All,

Based on our discussions today, please find below the proposed language for 
inclusion in the Final Report which includes the edits proposed in the chat (in 
bold) in relation to the legal review. Please share your support/non-support 
and/or proposed edits with the mailing list.

Thanks,

Marika

The WG recommends that as part of the implementation process a legal review of 
law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model that has 
not already been considered in the EWG memo is undertaken and due consideration 
is given to potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the 
transition from thin to thick Whois, including, for example, guidance on how 
the long-standing contractual requirement that registrars give notice to, and 
obtain consent, from each registrant for uses of any personally identifiable 
data submitted by the registrant should apply to registrations involved in the 
transition. Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions 
that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy 
consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO 
Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken.

The WG recommends that following the adoption of this report and 
recommendations by the GNSO Council, the subsequent public comment forum (prior 
to Board consideration) as well as the notification by the ICANN Board to the 
GAC, specifically request input on any considerations related to the transition 
from thin to thick Whois that would need to be taken into account as part of 
the implementation process.


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)