I agree with this as the motion stands.  

The only PDP on whois that I beleive should be done is one that looks at the BoardStaff decision to impose thick whois on all the new gTLD  without a policy process to determine this.    

If the current PDP proposal could be amended to take this issue up as it its first issue, I would recommend approving the PDP.    Then again, I can't imagine such a motion passing.  And if it did I can't imagine the GNSO deciding the remove the thick whois requirement, and even if it did, I bet the Board would overrule this one.  

avri


On 4 Feb 2012, at 18:40, Robin Gross wrote:

> I strongly agree with Wendy on this and hope our councilors will not support initiating a PDP to rubber stamp staff's plan for altering whois and further eroding privacy protections of Internet users.
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> 
>> As NCUC recommended in comments that were not opposed by NCSG, I'd
>> recommend against initiating this PDP.
>> 
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	[council] Motion to initiate a PDP on thick Whois
>> Date: 	Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:48:58 +0100
>> From: 	Stéphane Van Gelder <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: 	[log in to unmask] GNSO <[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Councillors,
>> 
>> Please find attached a motion on thick whois that I wish to make.
>> 
>> Please note that, although I have discussed with the registrars before
>> making the motion, I am making it in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO
>> Council in order to make sure work that has been undertaken in this area
>> continues to move forwards.
>> 
>> The motion simply follows the staff recommendation outlined in the issue
>> report.
>> 
>> I would ask all of you to take this motion back to your respective
>> groups and confer with them prior to our next meeting.
>> 
>> This motions suggests the initiation of a new PDP, so it should not be
>> taken lightly.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> <Motion on the Initiation of a PDP on 'thick' Whois - 2 February 2012.doc>
>