Proposed WHOIS language
Hello All, Below is some suggested language regarding WHOIS reviews for consideration by the CCWG when considering what to incorporate into the bylaws regarding the AoC reviews. Note the Board has no plans to cancel the current AoC - so the language in the AoC - still stands until the community and NTIA wish to change it. This language however tries to contemplate an environment where we are introducing a new gTLD Directory Service as a result of policy development within the GNSO, as well as most likely continuing to run the existing WHOIS service for some time. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service, subject to applicable laws, and working with the community to explore structural changes to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as well as consider safeguards for protecting data. This Review includes a commitment that becomes part of ICANN Bylaws, regarding enforcement of the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service policy requirements. The Board shall cause a periodic Review to assess the extent to which WHOIS/Directory Services policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promotes consumer trust, and safeguards data. The Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Review recommendations have been completed, and the extent to which implementation has had the intended effect. This periodic Review shall be convened no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the Board took action on previous review recommendations.
On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service,
I'm getting a slight queasiness about "forward looking statements". In the event that a future gTLD Directory Service is approved and deployed, and that this includes a policy requiring specific data to be made available through it, undoubtedly ICANN should enforce that policy. However, it does strike me that this language could raise hackles that it implies (or at least carries the connotation of) commiting now to a certain vision of requirements for a future RDS that, as I understand it, has not yet reached consensus or been approved. So while the wording itself isn't technically faulty, the feel of it is challenging. Perhaps if we split it out into a separate statement on RDS we could be more clear that we don't mean to imply pre-approving that now? Something like "ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS subject to applicable laws, and working with the community to explore structural changes to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as well as consider safeguards for protecting data. In the event that WHOIS is replaced or superceded by a future gTLD Directory Service with its own policies, the same commitment will apply to the enforcement of those future policies once they have been approved in due course." -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Hello Malcolm, On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service,
To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements. We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text: "any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process". We have already spent millions on data analysis and considering ways to improve WHOIS - so I hope it eventually leads to a new policy. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service,
To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.
Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.
We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:
"any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help. The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
All: For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the following: CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal These are attached. Greg On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service,
To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.
Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.
We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:
"any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help.
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I am not even going to bother to ask, for, the umpteenth time, that documents are posted in an open format. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 3, 2015, at 17:24, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the following:
CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal
These are attached.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service,
To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.
Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.
We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:
"any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help.
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<CCWG vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs CCWG Whois Review Comparison.docx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I welcome your increasing flexibility the Apple store a a free app to read MS word documents now that should work in you iPad mini Good luck Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
I am not even going to bother to ask, for, the umpteenth time, that documents are posted in an open format.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 3, 2015, at 17:24, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All:
For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the following:
CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal
These are attached.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service,
To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.
Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.
We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:
"any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help.
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
<CCWG vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs CCWG Whois Review Comparison.docx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <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
To be Frank, it's pretty rude to expect everyone to use the same software supplier. (In fact, in some circumstances it's even anti-competitive). Why can't we use open standards, again? On 09/03/2015 07:46 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez wrote:
I welcome your increasing flexibility the Apple store a a free app to read MS word documents now that should work in you iPad mini
Good luck
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
I am not even going to bother to ask, for, the umpteenth time, that documents are posted in an open format.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 3, 2015, at 17:24, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All:
For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the following:
CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal
These are attached.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > Hello Malcolm, > > On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >> ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS >> and any future gTLD Directory Service, > > To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.
Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.
> We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text: > > "any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help.
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<CCWG vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs CCWG Whois Review Comparison.docx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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
My linux based, open source, FREE word processor opens/saves MS Word documents without any trouble………. So I don’t know what the issue is With Dr. Lisse´s IPad mini... Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
To be Frank, it's pretty rude to expect everyone to use the same software supplier. (In fact, in some circumstances it's even anti-competitive).
Why can't we use open standards, again?
On 09/03/2015 07:46 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez wrote:
I welcome your increasing flexibility the Apple store a a free app to read MS word documents now that should work in you iPad mini
Good luck
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na> <mailto:el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>> wrote:
I am not even going to bother to ask, for, the umpteenth time, that documents are posted in an open format.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 3, 2015, at 17:24, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:
All:
For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the following:
CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal
These are attached.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net> <mailto:malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>> wrote:
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service,
To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.
Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.
We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:
"any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help.
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
<CCWG vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs CCWG Whois Review Comparison.docx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
This seems to fall into the "no good deed goes unpunished" category. In any event, and in spite of not being asked, I have taken my time to convert the three documents to the PDF format, because I'm a nice guy. Greg On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
My linux based, open source, FREE word processor opens/saves MS Word documents without any trouble………. So I don’t know what the issue is With Dr. Lisse´s IPad mini...
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
To be Frank, it's pretty rude to expect everyone to use the same software supplier. (In fact, in some circumstances it's even anti-competitive).
Why can't we use open standards, again?
On 09/03/2015 07:46 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez wrote:
I welcome your increasing flexibility the Apple store a a free app to read MS word documents now that should work in you iPad mini
Good luck
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org <crg@isoc-cr.org>> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na <el@lisse.na>>> wrote:
I am not even going to bother to ask, for, the umpteenth time, that documents are posted in an open format.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 3, 2015, at 17:24, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:
All:
For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the following:
CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal
These are attached.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net <malcolm@linx.net>>> wrote:
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service,
To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.
Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.
We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:
"any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help.
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<CCWG vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs CCWG Whois Review Comparison.docx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <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
_______________________________________________ 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
Good evening: With all my admiration for this excursion into 'track-changes' and many thanks to Greg for the .pdf formats: a) I have not understood why these texts need to be agreed upon now. Isn't this par excellence a case to be referred to "work stream 2" - ? b) WHOIS policy is being addressed in ICANN through several parallel processes, to the point that I have every expectation that they will give rise to inconsistent outcomes. We do not need CCWG to add to the process. c) In any event, I absolutely disagree to including anywhere the repeated references to " … a commitment that becomes part of ICANN Bylaws, regarding enforcement of the current WHOIS … " 1. Current WHOIS policy has proven to be unenforceable for more than a decade. 2. Current WHOIS policy, should it be enforced, jeopardises Registrars and Registrants in jurisdictions where the policy conflicts with applicable local law. 3. All of the above will have to be reviewed by the community as soon as ICANN proposes how to implement the recommendations for a new gTLD Directory Service. I suggest that CCWG drop the whole topic for the time being pending ICANN's proposals for new gTLD Directory Services. Regards CW Begin forwarded message:
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed WHOIS language Date: 3 Sep 2015 21:05:18 GMT+02:00 To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
This seems to fall into the "no good deed goes unpunished" category. In any event, and in spite of not being asked, I have taken my time to convert the three documents to the PDF format, because I'm a nice guy.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote: My linux based, open source, FREE word processor opens/saves MS Word documents without any trouble………. So I don’t know what the issue is With Dr. Lisse´s IPad mini...
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
To be Frank, it's pretty rude to expect everyone to use the same software supplier. (In fact, in some circumstances it's even anti-competitive).
Why can't we use open standards, again?
On 09/03/2015 07:46 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez wrote:
I welcome your increasing flexibility the Apple store a a free app to read MS word documents now that should work in you iPad mini
Good luck
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
I am not even going to bother to ask, for, the umpteenth time, that documents are posted in an open format.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 3, 2015, at 17:24, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All:
For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the following:
CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal
These are attached.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS > and any future gTLD Directory Service,
To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.
Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.
We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:
"any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help.
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<CCWG vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs CCWG Whois Review Comparison.docx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, you may advise this person that if even if I needed his advice on how to manage my work flow I would not ask him. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 3, 2015, at 19:54, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
My linux based, open source, FREE word processor opens/saves MS Word documents without any trouble………. So I don’t know what the issue is With Dr. Lisse´s IPad mini...
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
To be Frank, it's pretty rude to expect everyone to use the same software supplier. (In fact, in some circumstances it's even anti-competitive).
Why can't we use open standards, again?
On 09/03/2015 07:46 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez wrote: I welcome your increasing flexibility the Apple store a a free app to read MS word documents now that should work in you iPad mini
Good luck
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
I am not even going to bother to ask, for, the umpteenth time, that documents are posted in an open format.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 3, 2015, at 17:24, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All:
For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the following:
CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. AoC language Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal
These are attached.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS > and any future gTLD Directory Service,
To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.
Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.
We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:
"any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help.
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<CCWG vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> <Board vs CCWG Whois Review Comparison.docx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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
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
Hello Malcolm,
We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:
"any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".
I think that would help.
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being clear in the language we choose.
Agreed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (7)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
CW Mail -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Malcolm Hutty -
Nigel Roberts