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> >