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
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 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
+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
And as someone who echoed the term verbally and in the chat, I also apologize and withdraw. Thank you-- J. Sent from my iPad On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:11, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: +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<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
As a non-english native speaker, is this such a negative term to warrant this torrent of apologies. If so, I will have to update my speech patterns. Best, Volker Am 29.04.2014 17:35, schrieb James M. Bladel:
And as someone who echoed the term verbally and in the chat, I also apologize and withdraw.
Thank you--
J.
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:11, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
+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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
In my opinion, yes. A rat hole is a deep dark place full of waste and filth. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor kiranm@markmonitor.com<mailto:kiranm@markmonitor.com> 415-222-8318 (t) 415-419-9138 (m) ________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Volker Greimann [vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:48 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] The threshold question before Category C, Question 1 As a non-english native speaker, is this such a negative term to warrant this torrent of apologies. If so, I will have to update my speech patterns. Best, Volker Am 29.04.2014 17:35, schrieb James M. Bladel: And as someone who echoed the term verbally and in the chat, I also apologize and withdraw. Thank you-- J. Sent from my iPad On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:11, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: +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<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
I am sorry to have missed today’s meeting, I am in transit. However, I would respectfully disagree with the evident discomfort over the expression “going down a rathole”. This is a time-honoured British expression and is used extensively to refer to disappearing down a small hole that turns into a cavernous expanse, and swallows up time and resources. I am having trouble pulling up the OED complete in the airport lounge over crummy wifi, but I do not believe the term itself implies disrespect in any way, merely that the thread of conversation has apparently disappeared and it is not clear where it went. I will send you the historical derivation when I dig it up, but I believe it is very old, possibly even Anglo saxon (Old English) and is derived from the practice of sending ferrets down ratholes, where they would disappear for a happy afternoon of killing rats, emerging possibly hours later. (Hence also the expression “ferreting out”, as some lucky rodents would scramble out the holes, only to be nabbed by waiting dogs.) Small terriers were used for the same thing in barns, outbuildings, granaries, and slaughterhouses, where they would fit. This, in an agrarian society, is a good thing, not a bad thing. So since it is one of my favourite expressions, and I have heard it regularly in polite discourse, I would not dissuade Volker from adapting it. Our language becomes ever more colourless and rootless every day. Sent without knowing who said what to whom, only that the expression itself is time-honoured and should not be construed in itself as offensive. cheers Stephanie PS if I cannot find positive references in the OED, be warned, Sweet’s Anglo-Saxon grammar will be next, then the Old Norse dictionary…. On Apr 29, 2014, at 11:35 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
And as someone who echoed the term verbally and in the chat, I also apologize and withdraw.
Thank you--
J.
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:11, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
+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 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 to Stephanie ------------------------ Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:04, "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: I am sorry to have missed today’s meeting, I am in transit. However, I would respectfully disagree with the evident discomfort over the expression “going down a rathole”. This is a time-honoured British expression and is used extensively to refer to disappearing down a small hole that turns into a cavernous expanse, and swallows up time and resources. I am having trouble pulling up the OED complete in the airport lounge over crummy wifi, but I do not believe the term itself implies disrespect in any way, merely that the thread of conversation has apparently disappeared and it is not clear where it went. I will send you the historical derivation when I dig it up, but I believe it is very old, possibly even Anglo saxon (Old English) and is derived from the practice of sending ferrets down ratholes, where they would disappear for a happy afternoon of killing rats, emerging possibly hours later. (Hence also the expression “ferreting out”, as some lucky rodents would scramble out the holes, only to be nabbed by waiting dogs.) Small terriers were used for the same thing in barns, outbuildings, granaries, and slaughterhouses, where they would fit. This, in an agrarian society, is a good thing, not a bad thing. So since it is one of my favourite expressions, and I have heard it regularly in polite discourse, I would not dissuade Volker from adapting it. Our language becomes ever more colourless and rootless every day. Sent without knowing who said what to whom, only that the expression itself is time-honoured and should not be construed in itself as offensive. cheers Stephanie PS if I cannot find positive references in the OED, be warned, Sweet’s Anglo-Saxon grammar will be next, then the Old Norse dictionary…. On Apr 29, 2014, at 11:35 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: And as someone who echoed the term verbally and in the chat, I also apologize and withdraw. Thank you-- J. Sent from my iPad On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:11, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: +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<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<x-msg://212/#sdfootnote1sym> 1<x-msg://212/#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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
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@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:04 AM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 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
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@msk.com<mailto:met@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:04 AM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 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
participants (8)
-
James M. Bladel -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Metalitz, Steven -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Stephanie Perrin -
Tim Ruiz -
Volker Greimann