[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] The threshold question before Category C, Question 1

[Tim Ruiz]

Thanks Steve. I over reacted for sure. I can understand where the term rathole would be taken negatively, but that certainly is not how I meant it. I meant it in the way that it is dark, without unknown direction, difficult to even determine where you are at any one point, etc. So I apologize and will try to respond with a higher light going forward.

I also do not mean to suggest that we skip this discussion altogether, only that we refocus it first on what the desired outcomes are by those who favor categories. It may be that no one objects to those outcomes and then we can have a productive discussion about how to get to those outcomes (categories, reveal, etc.). Just seems to me, in my own opinion, a better way forward.

Tim


On Apr 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:

Tim, I apologize if any of my comments offended you.  I certainly did not intend to give any offense.

I do think that some of the our discussion today, both on the audio channel and in chat, generated more heat than light.

It is certainly not my decision whether to "move on" but I stated my view that some discussion of the concrete, practical problems with mandating eligibility restrictions for p/p services would help draw out whether this is a path that we can pursue.  But clearly this merits further consideration and I am not sure anyone expressed agreement with my view in the closing minutes of the call.  I hope this can be further discussed on the list.

Steve

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:04 AM
To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] The threshold question before Category C, Question 1


Agree with further discussion of the threshold here. I do not appreciate that the Chair just decides to call some of our concerns "rhetoric" and then decide on his own to move on. Steve, normally I consider you a very reasonable and fair WG member, here and in the past. But that was uncalled for and clearly panders to your own personal view, not that of the WG as a whole. As a result, this must be discussed further next week.



Tim



________________________________
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] The threshold question before Category C, Question 1

Hi All,
Here's the threshold question we agreed to discuss *before* entering into the specific issues of the area:

Threshold Question:

Currently, proxy/privacy services are available to companies, noncommercial organizations and individuals.  Should there be any change to this aspect of the current system in the new accreditation standards?1

1 Several WG members noted that some questions in this Section are somewhat conditional, in that a Yes/No answer to one may obviate the need to answer others. The "use" of a domain for specific purposes may also implicate content questions. The WG agreed that these issues should be flagged for discussion when considering the WG's response to this Section.

Best,
Kathy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140429/621a109e/attachment.html>