Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.

I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis.

Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.

If that is the point we want to make.

Marita

On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.

So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.

The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.

I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.

I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.

Alan

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online:
http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC )