Andrew: You've hit a nail on a head, and can expect some obfuscation to follow. The original Affirmation of Commitments essentially contained a promise - extracted out of the USG by one stakeholder group and imposed on the rest of us without any participation - that ICANN would never change its basic Whois policy. This is one reason why I've never been thrilled about incorporating the AoC into the accountability reform process. The AoC contained good accountability and transparency language but also got attached to it a bunch of commitments that essentially circumvented the actual bottom up policy process. For that reason I would strongly support your suggestion that a review of Whois/RDS not duplicate a PDP. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:13 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community