[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation

[Avri Doria]

Is it covered?

I will argue for it anyway.

avri


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation
> Date: 3 September 2013 10:03:55 EDT
> To: "'avri at acm.org'" <avri at acm.org>, "gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Isn't this already covered by the Board-initiated PDP on Whois that will be launched once the EWG issues its final report, and as to which a preliminary issues report has already been published?  http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13-en.htm 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:45 AM
> To: gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> We have moved a lot of privacy issues into a heap called - 'to be worked on later'
> 
> I recommend that we include the following recommendation to deal with this myriad  of issues:
> 
> We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other GNSO policies.
> 
> This recommendation would probably require some glue language in a few other spots in the final report.
> 
> The reason for requesting that the Board, as opposed to the GNSO, is the number of ICANN staff organizations, such as legal, that need to be folded into any such effort.  It would also give evidence of ICANN's concern about such issues in this time of great privacy anxiety.
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> Avri Doria
> 
> 
>