+1, 2 and 3 to Tim, but with apologies to the Chair for the rhetoric. The term "rathole" popped out. I withdraw it and apologize to anyone anyone I inadvertently offended. Best, Kathy :
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@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@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 <#sdfootnote1sym>
1 <#sdfootnote1anc>^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