[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] Thick Whois Final Report for consensus call

[Avri Doria]

forgot to bcc the policy group on this.

avri


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Thick Whois Final Report for consensus call
> Date: 23 September 2013 11:00:18 EDT
> To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike at haven2.com>
> Cc: Thick Whois WG <gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 18 Sep 2013, at 09:09, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> we have one remaining issue to work through, which i'm hoping we can work through this week on the list or on our next call.  look for some email from Avri on that.  
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I don't see any changes yet i the docs and am not really sure what this group is going to allow to happen.
> 
> I beleive that 7.1 should contain a recommendation for an issues report. 
> 
> As I understand I have people rather pointedly and forcefully telling me:
> 
> - "We don't have the scope to Recommend an issue report"* - this i just don't understand - every WG has the scope to recommend an issue report on further work it did not feel scoped or qualified to do.  Also, legal opinion is usually delivered in the context of issues reports and WG requests.
> 
> - "We need more legal advice before we can contemplate policy" - and it the staff writing the issues report agrees with this, they will say so and the issues report will serve to kick of that work.
> 
> - "We had a sub-group and we agreed, so please stop going for a second bite of the apple -  it is improper MSM* behavior" -  My impression of WG process had always been that a sub-group discusses in detail and then this is subjected to a full WG discussion and later, after the comment resolution period, a consensus call.  I consider that the appropriate times for last bites at the apple are during the consensus call, when the council votes on whether proper process was followed in the WG to determine consensus and whether the recommendations should go forward based on the WG having done its job properly, and during the final comment period before the Board makes it decision.  I promise I will not be contacting my congressmen once the Council and then the Board approve the recommendation asking for a yet another congressional hearing.
> 
> - "Not everyone thinks that the privacy issues are as important and critical as you do. And not everyone understands the facts of the case in the same way you do."  - Well, ummmm, sure, ok.
> 
> So it seems I will not get the minimum I think is necessary, i.e. there will be no Recommendation for an issues report in the Recommendations section of the report.  the compromise being offered is less than what I consider minimal.
> 
> But on this issue, one where I felt  the work and issues my colleagues brought up were being given short shrift, having brought the issue to discussion and having collected the viewpoint of many in the group, I am willing to defer to those colleagues.  Current indications inform me the compromise offered will be forever be less than I think is necessary and I may add public comments to that effect in the public comment and in the NCSG Policy Committee discussions.  But if my NCSG colleagues indicate they can live with the compromise that is being offered, I will acquiesce for the purposes of this working group and will not file a solo dissenting report.
> 
> avri
> 
> * all 'quotes' my approximations of the comments being directed my way
> * MSM - Multistakeholder model
>