Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Expert Working Group Dissent Opinion

[Denise Michel]

Hello, Chris.

The dissent ‹ a final copy of which was received after the report was posted
‹ is publicly posted along with the EWG Report. Please see:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-directory-services-2013-02-14-en

The dissent also was highlighted in a public blog post by the EWG Chair.
Please see:  
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/expert-working-group-ewg-reinventing-whois-r
ead-discuss-get-involved

The EWG Report was published on June 6. At publication time, the EWG was
provided with a draft dissent statement and the group was asked for
comments. The EWG was provided with a revised draft dissent statement and
was asked for comments on June 18. Corrections were identified for both
iterations. The final dissent statement was provided and published on
icann.org on June 24.

I would be happy to provide additional information if needed.

Regards,
Denise






From:  Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org>
Date:  Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 2:42 PM
To:  "input-to-ewg at icann.org" <input-to-ewg at icann.org>
Subject:  Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Expert
Working Group Dissent Opinion

I have received a complaint that the Expert Working Group pages do not
include the dissenting opinion from Stephanie Perrin. I have been provided
with the links to the final report and other materials, and the dissenting
opinion does not appear to be included. The complainant considered that the
dissent should be included in the interests of transparency and openness,
and pointed out that other dissenting opinions on significant issues have
previously been included on other matters. My initial contact therefore is
really by way of an enquiry, because it may be that the dissent was
overlooked when the other materials were posted including the final report.
I would be happy to discuss this further, possibly at our Singapore meeting.
 
My preliminary view, subject to comments from the Expert Working Group, is
that the dissent should be included. If this was a deliberate decision, I
would be grateful for your comments and the reason. That will enable me to
reach a considered opinion on the facts.
 
Regards
 
Chris LaHatte
Ombudsman
Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ <https://omblog.icann.org/>
Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
<http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman>
 
 
Confidentiality
All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.
The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the
privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the
complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make
inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and
identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the
complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to
ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of
such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a
complaint
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/attachments/20150127/b9afc8fc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5050 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/attachments/20150127/b9afc8fc/smime-0001.p7s>