Hi, Somehow, ICANN decding what is and what isn't content seems way out of scope. BTW, hanging out at the IETF this week, a few people have explained to me the importance of the IAB request, (I have also read Andrews words) and remove my objection to doing this. But suggestions such as declaring what is and what isn't content ís the sort of creepage that I was worried about in my concerns about reopening the mission. cheers avri On 04-Nov-15 23:17, Alan Greenberg wrote:
In the regulatory section, I would still like to see language that explicitly says that the unique identifiers themselves are deemed to not be "content".
What is the status of the two sections where "Where feasible and appropriate" had been deleted in the August proposal?
Alan
At 03/11/2015 10:13 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
I've attached a revised deck trying to lay out our conclusions from last night.
1. We concluded to resolve the support/coordinate problem by eliminating the chapeau in the Mission Statement. See Slide 1 and the side-by-side document 2. Kavouss strongly urged us to modify the language of the regulatory preclusion. I have taken a shot at that in purple in the side-by-side document 3. Greg Shatan proposed a modification to the contracting language also reflected in purple on slide 2 4. We agreed to put transparency points 1 and 2 in WS1 and to address points 3 and 4 as part of WS2.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus