I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon. You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal. The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be. Comments please, with some urgency. Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair
Alan, I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit :
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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+(ALA...)
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support. Kind regards, León Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com> escribió:
Alan,
I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders –
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed “limited scope†for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
To be clear, the issue was never staff support. The reduced scope came from the volunteer community because of the worry that the same people who were working on other RDS-related work (and particularly the GNSO PDP) would be the ones to best serve on this RT. That is largely the same logic used by the CCWG-Accountability for suggesting that the scope of ATRT3 be reduced. I'm not arguing for or against, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page. Alan At 09/01/2017 12:28 AM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support.
Kind regards,
León
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com>tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com> escribió:
Alan,
I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders
The GNSO Council, working wiith its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcominoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Thanks Alan, If the case is that the review would be looking at the same issues that the WG would, then I would support reducing the scope as we did with the CCWG in order to avoid duplicative efforts. In any case I put my work where my mouth is and should there be the need to join the RDS WG, count me in. Best regards, León
El 09/01/2017, a las 00:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
To be clear, the issue was never staff support. The reduced scope came from the volunteer community because of the worry that the same people who were working on other RDS-related work (and particularly the GNSO PDP) would be the ones to best serve on this RT.
That is largely the same logic used by the CCWG-Accountability for suggesting that the scope of ATRT3 be reduced.
I'm not arguing for or against, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.
Alan
At 09/01/2017 12:28 AM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support.
Kind regards,
León
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com>> escribió:
Alan,
I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > a écrit :
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders
The GNSO Council, working wiith its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcominoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
Hi Leon Careful - you may be pressed into service. As I have already said, the issues revolve around Whois information (Clause 3.3.1 RAA), what is published and who has access. And what we don’t need is yet another group looking at the same issues. So - again - PLEASE confine the review terms of reference Holly On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:03 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Alan,
If the case is that the review would be looking at the same issues that the WG would, then I would support reducing the scope as we did with the CCWG in order to avoid duplicative efforts.
In any case I put my work where my mouth is and should there be the need to join the RDS WG, count me in.
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 00:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
To be clear, the issue was never staff support. The reduced scope came from the volunteer community because of the worry that the same people who were working on other RDS-related work (and particularly the GNSO PDP) would be the ones to best serve on this RT.
That is largely the same logic used by the CCWG-Accountability for suggesting that the scope of ATRT3 be reduced.
I'm not arguing for or against, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.
Alan
At 09/01/2017 12:28 AM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support.
Kind regards,
León
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com> escribió:
Alan,
I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a écrit :
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders
The GNSO Council, working wiith its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcominoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
Thanks Holly, If that is what you recommend, I am happy to follow. You’re experience in the subject and the discussions around it is extensive so I trust your recommendation is the best way to go. On the other hand, I reiterate my willingness to work on the subject if required :-) Best regards, León
El 09/01/2017, a las 15:16, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió:
Hi Leon
Careful - you may be pressed into service. As I have already said, the issues revolve around Whois information (Clause 3.3.1 RAA), what is published and who has access. And what we don’t need is yet another group looking at the same issues. So - again - PLEASE confine the review terms of reference
Holly
On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:03 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Thanks Alan,
If the case is that the review would be looking at the same issues that the WG would, then I would support reducing the scope as we did with the CCWG in order to avoid duplicative efforts.
In any case I put my work where my mouth is and should there be the need to join the RDS WG, count me in.
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 00:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> escribió:
To be clear, the issue was never staff support. The reduced scope came from the volunteer community because of the worry that the same people who were working on other RDS-related work (and particularly the GNSO PDP) would be the ones to best serve on this RT.
That is largely the same logic used by the CCWG-Accountability for suggesting that the scope of ATRT3 be reduced.
I'm not arguing for or against, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.
Alan
At 09/01/2017 12:28 AM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support.
Kind regards,
León
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com>> escribió:
Alan,
I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > a écrit :
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> > Subject: Re: RDS Review > Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000 > > > Dear Karen and Community Leaders > > The GNSO Council, working wiith its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcominoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference. > > Thank you, > > J. > ---------------- > James Bladel > GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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+(ALA...)
It would seem that the logical next step would be for ALAC to send suscinct advice to the Board (and the GNSO) recommending against the expanded scope, for the redundancy reasons Holly reasonably offers. - Evan
Thanks Leon My recommendation for a VERY limited review is really more from desperation. And, since this is a really important issue for users. maybe we should revive something Rinalia started but I did for a couple of ICANN meetings - devote a couple of hours of ALAC time to explain policy issues in detail. (and those discussions have included discussion of Whois). So - in planning for Copenhagen, I would like to strongly suggest we make time for two things: a workshop on the Review, and time for ALAC to work through its thoughts on current policy issues. I am more than aware of the Hot Topic sessions - and to an extent they replace our policy sessions. But I am talking about specific sessions just to discuss what an ALAC policy position should be. (using Garth’s suggestion for an ALAC consideration of issues) And top of my list - Whois - what it is and why there is so much discussion - and groups - on the issue. I’m sure there are others. But what this discussion has brought to my mind is that more of us should be at least a bit aware of the current policy issues before ICANN. So Leon - you’re next Holly On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:20 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Holly,
If that is what you recommend, I am happy to follow. You’re experience in the subject and the discussions around it is extensive so I trust your recommendation is the best way to go.
On the other hand, I reiterate my willingness to work on the subject if required :-)
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 15:16, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió:
Hi Leon
Careful - you may be pressed into service. As I have already said, the issues revolve around Whois information (Clause 3.3.1 RAA), what is published and who has access. And what we don’t need is yet another group looking at the same issues. So - again - PLEASE confine the review terms of reference
Holly
On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:03 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Alan,
If the case is that the review would be looking at the same issues that the WG would, then I would support reducing the scope as we did with the CCWG in order to avoid duplicative efforts.
In any case I put my work where my mouth is and should there be the need to join the RDS WG, count me in.
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 00:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
To be clear, the issue was never staff support. The reduced scope came from the volunteer community because of the worry that the same people who were working on other RDS-related work (and particularly the GNSO PDP) would be the ones to best serve on this RT.
That is largely the same logic used by the CCWG-Accountability for suggesting that the scope of ATRT3 be reduced.
I'm not arguing for or against, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.
Alan
At 09/01/2017 12:28 AM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support.
Kind regards,
León
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com> escribió:
Alan,
I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a écrit : > > I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon. > > You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal. > > The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be. > > Comments please, with some urgency. > > Alan > > >> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> >> Subject: Re: RDS Review >> Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000 >> >> >> Dear Karen and Community Leaders >> >> The GNSO Council, working wiith its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcominoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference. >> >> Thank you, >> >> J. >> ---------------- >> James Bladel >> GNSO Chair > <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ > 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
Dear Holly, thanks for this recommendation. If that is the way you suggest we go, based on your experience, I support your suggestion. On following Rinalia’s steps, I am more than glad to do so. Your suggestion actually comes in at the perfect time as we are beginning to plan our schedule for Copenhagen. If you allow me, I will touch base with Gisella and Alan to find a 2 hour spot devoted to in detail explanation of policy issues and then coordinate with you and the rest of the ALAC to find the topics and possible speakers to each of them. I am glad to join the work of the Whois WG and help you in that task. Best regards, León
El 09/01/2017, a las 15:43, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió:
Thanks Leon
My recommendation for a VERY limited review is really more from desperation. And, since this is a really important issue for users. maybe we should revive something Rinalia started but I did for a couple of ICANN meetings - devote a couple of hours of ALAC time to explain policy issues in detail. (and those discussions have included discussion of Whois). So - in planning for Copenhagen, I would like to strongly suggest we make time for two things: a workshop on the Review, and time for ALAC to work through its thoughts on current policy issues. I am more than aware of the Hot Topic sessions - and to an extent they replace our policy sessions. But I am talking about specific sessions just to discuss what an ALAC policy position should be. (using Garth’s suggestion for an ALAC consideration of issues)
And top of my list - Whois - what it is and why there is so much discussion - and groups - on the issue. I’m sure there are others. But what this discussion has brought to my mind is that more of us should be at least a bit aware of the current policy issues before ICANN.
So Leon - you’re next
Holly On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:20 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Thanks Holly,
If that is what you recommend, I am happy to follow. You’re experience in the subject and the discussions around it is extensive so I trust your recommendation is the best way to go.
On the other hand, I reiterate my willingness to work on the subject if required :-)
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 15:16, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> escribió:
Hi Leon
Careful - you may be pressed into service. As I have already said, the issues revolve around Whois information (Clause 3.3.1 RAA), what is published and who has access. And what we don’t need is yet another group looking at the same issues. So - again - PLEASE confine the review terms of reference
Holly
On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:03 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Thanks Alan,
If the case is that the review would be looking at the same issues that the WG would, then I would support reducing the scope as we did with the CCWG in order to avoid duplicative efforts.
In any case I put my work where my mouth is and should there be the need to join the RDS WG, count me in.
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 00:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> escribió:
To be clear, the issue was never staff support. The reduced scope came from the volunteer community because of the worry that the same people who were working on other RDS-related work (and particularly the GNSO PDP) would be the ones to best serve on this RT.
That is largely the same logic used by the CCWG-Accountability for suggesting that the scope of ATRT3 be reduced.
I'm not arguing for or against, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.
Alan
At 09/01/2017 12:28 AM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support.
Kind regards,
León
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com>> escribió:
> Alan, > > I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: +216 98 330 114 > +216 52 385 114 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > a écrit : >> >> I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon. >> >> You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal. >> >> The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be. >> >> Comments please, with some urgency. >> >> Alan >> >> >>> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> >>> Subject: Re: RDS Review >>> Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000 >>> >>> >>> Dear Karen and Community Leaders >>> >>> The GNSO Council, working wiith its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcominoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> J. >>> ---------------- >>> James Bladel >>> GNSO Chair >> <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> >> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
Good idea, Holly! --andrei 2017-01-10 0:43 GMT+03:00 Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>:
Thanks Leon
My recommendation for a VERY limited review is really more from desperation. And, since this is a really important issue for users. maybe we should revive something Rinalia started but I did for a couple of ICANN meetings - devote a couple of hours of ALAC time to explain policy issues in detail. (and those discussions have included discussion of Whois). So - in planning for Copenhagen, I would like to strongly suggest we make time for two things: a workshop on the Review, and time for ALAC to work through its thoughts on current policy issues. I am more than aware of the Hot Topic sessions - and to an extent they replace our policy sessions. But I am talking about specific sessions just to discuss what an ALAC policy position should be. (using Garth’s suggestion for an ALAC consideration of issues)
And top of my list - Whois - what it is and why there is so much discussion - and groups - on the issue. I’m sure there are others. But what this discussion has brought to my mind is that more of us should be at least a bit aware of the current policy issues before ICANN.
So Leon - you’re next
Holly
On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:20 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Holly,
If that is what you recommend, I am happy to follow. You’re experience in the subject and the discussions around it is extensive so I trust your recommendation is the best way to go.
On the other hand, I reiterate my willingness to work on the subject if required :-)
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 15:16, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió:
Hi Leon
Careful - you may be pressed into service. As I have already said, the issues revolve around Whois information (Clause 3.3.1 RAA), what is published and who has access. And what we don’t need is yet another group looking at the same issues. So - again - PLEASE confine the review terms of reference
Holly
On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:03 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Alan,
If the case is that the review would be looking at the same issues that the WG would, then I would support reducing the scope as we did with the CCWG in order to avoid duplicative efforts.
In any case I put my work where my mouth is and should there be the need to join the RDS WG, count me in.
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 00:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
To be clear, the issue was never staff support. The reduced scope came from the volunteer community because of the worry that the same people who were working on other RDS-related work (and particularly the GNSO PDP) would be the ones to best serve on this RT.
That is largely the same logic used by the CCWG-Accountability for suggesting that the scope of ATRT3 be reduced.
I'm not arguing for or against, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.
Alan
At 09/01/2017 12:28 AM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support.
Kind regards,
León
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com> escribió:
Alan,
I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA *Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a écrit :
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders –
The GNSO Council, working wiith its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed “limited scope†for the upcominoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair
<GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>______________________ _________________________ 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)
_______________________________________________ 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)
-- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET
Desperation you say, Dear Holly? Nooooooooo. Not!!! Just plain common sense, if you look at the lay of the land. We have enough going on without more. And absent a definitive policy position reported from the RDS WG, I think its a fool's taask to keep going on about these matters. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Leon
My recommendation for a VERY limited review is really more from desperation. And, since this is a really important issue for users. maybe we should revive something Rinalia started but I did for a couple of ICANN meetings - devote a couple of hours of ALAC time to explain policy issues in detail. (and those discussions have included discussion of Whois). So - in planning for Copenhagen, I would like to strongly suggest we make time for two things: a workshop on the Review, and time for ALAC to work through its thoughts on current policy issues. I am more than aware of the Hot Topic sessions - and to an extent they replace our policy sessions. But I am talking about specific sessions just to discuss what an ALAC policy position should be. (using Garth’s suggestion for an ALAC consideration of issues)
And top of my list - Whois - what it is and why there is so much discussion - and groups - on the issue. I’m sure there are others. But what this discussion has brought to my mind is that more of us should be at least a bit aware of the current policy issues before ICANN.
So Leon - you’re next
Holly
On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:20 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Holly,
If that is what you recommend, I am happy to follow. You’re experience in the subject and the discussions around it is extensive so I trust your recommendation is the best way to go.
On the other hand, I reiterate my willingness to work on the subject if required :-)
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 15:16, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió:
Hi Leon
Careful - you may be pressed into service. As I have already said, the issues revolve around Whois information (Clause 3.3.1 RAA), what is published and who has access. And what we don’t need is yet another group looking at the same issues. So - again - PLEASE confine the review terms of reference
Holly
On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:03 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Alan,
If the case is that the review would be looking at the same issues that the WG would, then I would support reducing the scope as we did with the CCWG in order to avoid duplicative efforts.
In any case I put my work where my mouth is and should there be the need to join the RDS WG, count me in.
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 00:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
To be clear, the issue was never staff support. The reduced scope came from the volunteer community because of the worry that the same people who were working on other RDS-related work (and particularly the GNSO PDP) would be the ones to best serve on this RT.
That is largely the same logic used by the CCWG-Accountability for suggesting that the scope of ATRT3 be reduced.
I'm not arguing for or against, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.
Alan
At 09/01/2017 12:28 AM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support.
Kind regards,
León
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com> escribió:
Alan,
I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA *Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114> ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a écrit :
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders –
The GNSO Council, working wiith its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed “limited scope†for the upcominoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair
<GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>______________________ _________________________ 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)
_______________________________________________ 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)
Thanks Carlton And at this (early) morning’s RDA WG meeting, Alan raised the issue - thank you Alan. And, happily, got some support, plus a report from a GAC person about comments from the GAC chair that suggested a wider review. At least the issue is now on the table, and not just for ALAC. (And yes, Carlton - a form of desperation at how many WGs and whatever are going through the same issues. I do hope common sense prevails. Holly On 11 Jan 2017, at 7:40 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Desperation you say, Dear Holly? Nooooooooo. Not!!!
Just plain common sense, if you look at the lay of the land. We have enough going on without more. And absent a definitive policy position reported from the RDS WG, I think its a fool's taask to keep going on about these matters.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Thanks Leon
My recommendation for a VERY limited review is really more from desperation. And, since this is a really important issue for users. maybe we should revive something Rinalia started but I did for a couple of ICANN meetings - devote a couple of hours of ALAC time to explain policy issues in detail. (and those discussions have included discussion of Whois). So - in planning for Copenhagen, I would like to strongly suggest we make time for two things: a workshop on the Review, and time for ALAC to work through its thoughts on current policy issues. I am more than aware of the Hot Topic sessions - and to an extent they replace our policy sessions. But I am talking about specific sessions just to discuss what an ALAC policy position should be. (using Garth’s suggestion for an ALAC consideration of issues)
And top of my list - Whois - what it is and why there is so much discussion - and groups - on the issue. I’m sure there are others. But what this discussion has brought to my mind is that more of us should be at least a bit aware of the current policy issues before ICANN.
So Leon - you’re next
Holly
On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:20 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Holly,
If that is what you recommend, I am happy to follow. You’re experience in the subject and the discussions around it is extensive so I trust your recommendation is the best way to go.
On the other hand, I reiterate my willingness to work on the subject if required :-)
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 15:16, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió:
Hi Leon
Careful - you may be pressed into service. As I have already said, the issues revolve around Whois information (Clause 3.3.1 RAA), what is published and who has access. And what we don’t need is yet another group looking at the same issues. So - again - PLEASE confine the review terms of reference
Holly
On 10 Jan 2017, at 8:03 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Alan,
If the case is that the review would be looking at the same issues that the WG would, then I would support reducing the scope as we did with the CCWG in order to avoid duplicative efforts.
In any case I put my work where my mouth is and should there be the need to join the RDS WG, count me in.
Best regards,
León
El 09/01/2017, a las 00:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
To be clear, the issue was never staff support. The reduced scope came from the volunteer community because of the worry that the same people who were working on other RDS-related work (and particularly the GNSO PDP) would be the ones to best serve on this RT.
That is largely the same logic used by the CCWG-Accountability for suggesting that the scope of ATRT3 be reduced.
I'm not arguing for or against, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.
Alan
At 09/01/2017 12:28 AM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
I agree with Tijani. The widened scope seems justified although it will surely require more staff support.
Kind regards,
León
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene. 8, 2017, a las 11:02 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com> escribió:
> Alan, > > I understand the issue of bandwidth but would accept the GNSO proposal because of the merit of the wide scope. In our comment we should note that we support the wide scope assuming that more time and more staff support would be provided to the review team. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: +216 98 330 114 > +216 52 385 114 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> Le 9 janv. 2017 à 05:07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a écrit : >> >> I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon. >> >> You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal. >> >> The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be. >> >> Comments please, with some urgency. >> >> Alan >> >> >>> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> >>> Subject: Re: RDS Review >>> Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000 >>> >>> >>> Dear Karen and Community Leaders – >>> >>> The GNSO Council, working wiith its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed “limited scope†for the upcominoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> J. >>> ---------------- >>> James Bladel >>> GNSO Chair >> <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ >> 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+(ALA...) > > _______________________________________________ > 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
My first response - OMG (to be polite) So Tijani, Leon and everyone else who thinks widening the Terms of Reference is a good idea - I trust you are also putting your hands up - and trust me- these issues have been discussed for YEARS (my life with WHOIS goes back to 2009) so you’ll be involve for YEARS. Just ask Carlton. Alan - if you were at the WG in Hyderabad where expanded terms of reference were discussed, you know what I think. I said so at the time to everyone at the meeting. And I could go on - but won’t. I frankly don’t have time for the existing RDS AND the review, so I think one of us should stay on the RDS and the other, tackle this insanity (while keeping an eye on the P/P services implementation team and the implementation of the RDAP). My suggested response (in case you haven’t guessed) is that anything more than a TINY review is a HUGE ask - and not just on ALAC. At least, with the others, attending all the meetings is part of what they do. But if they want anything representing the interests of end users, they can pay for the hours it takes (and, for those of us on this side of the globe, weekly calls beginning at 0400 hrs - for 90 minutes. Once Sydney if off daylight savings and the US is on daylight savings, its 0200 - 0330 every week.) SHEER BLOODY MADNESS Holly On 9 Jan 2017, at 1:07 pm, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
On 09/01/2017 10:56, Holly Raiche wrote:
My suggested response (in case you haven’t guessed) is that anything more than a TINY review is a HUGE ask - and not just on ALAC. At least, with the others, attending all the meetings is part of what they do. But if they want anything representing the interests of end users, they can pay for the hours it takes (and, for those of us on this side of the globe, weekly calls beginning at 0400 hrs - for 90 minutes. Once Sydney if off daylight savings and the US is on daylight savings, its 0200 - 0330 every week.)
SHEER BLOODY MADNESS
No call rotation? O.
And what I didn’t add was WHY this issue is so HUGE. Essentially, the RAA requires that WHOIS information (as defined - including registrant’s name, address, contact details etc - see Clause 3.3.1 in the 2013 RAA) be publicly available. And, as many of you are aware - that goes absolutely up against data retention laws in the EU, Canada, and many other jurisdictions - which means that registrars are either breaking their contract with ICANN or national data retention laws. Fadi - and the Board - recognised those difficulties and established the Expert Working Group (Carlton, for his sins, was a member) that came up with proposals to address those difficulties including a concept of making only limited information on registrants publicly available, with gated access to more layers of information, depending on the status of the requestor. And the Board has approved of the RDS WG to work - within its charter - through EWG proposals. So, in that way too truncated recitation of the outline of the issues, the RDS WG that ALan, Carlton and I are members of, are working through what we do about that fundamental contradiction between basic data retention law and ICANN’s RAA. And trust me, there are many interest groups that have had access to that publicly available personal information and are not happy at the prospect of losing that access. End result - we are YEARS away from a final policy on who has what access to what level of registrant personal information. Which is why i cringe at the thought of yet another RDS WG - without a final, agreed policy framework on access to registrant data. And yes, that is only one of the issues raised by Whois. and what Carlton, Alan and I should be doing is bringing you all in to participate in this issue - I promise you, there is plenty of policy work for years to come - and I”d love company. BUT PLEASE, not yet another review Holly On 9 Jan 2017, at 1:07 pm, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
These last few emails are exactly why we need people with institutional memory in At Large and ALAC: so new people, like I, can at least begin to grasp the deep complexities of some issues and not fall into the pitfalls caused when power is coupled with ignorance. Thank you. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jan 9, 2017, at 6:33 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
And what I didn’t add was WHY this issue is so HUGE.
Essentially, the RAA requires that WHOIS information (as defined - including registrant’s name, address, contact details etc - see Clause 3.3.1 in the 2013 RAA) be publicly available. And, as many of you are aware - that goes absolutely up against data retention laws in the EU, Canada, and many other jurisdictions - which means that registrars are either breaking their contract with ICANN or national data retention laws. Fadi - and the Board - recognised those difficulties and established the Expert Working Group (Carlton, for his sins, was a member) that came up with proposals to address those difficulties including a concept of making only limited information on registrants publicly available, with gated access to more layers of information, depending on the status of the requestor. And the Board has approved of the RDS WG to work - within its charter - through EWG proposals. So, in that way too truncated recitation of the outline of the issues, the RDS WG that ALan, Carlton and I are members of, are working through what we do about that fundamental contradiction between basic data retention law and ICANN’s RAA. And trust me, there are many interest groups that have had access to that publicly available personal information and are not happy at the prospect of losing that access.
End result - we are YEARS away from a final policy on who has what access to what level of registrant personal information. Which is why i cringe at the thought of yet another RDS WG - without a final, agreed policy framework on access to registrant data.
And yes, that is only one of the issues raised by Whois.
and what Carlton, Alan and I should be doing is bringing you all in to participate in this issue - I promise you, there is plenty of policy work for years to come - and I”d love company. BUT PLEASE, not yet another review
Holly
On 9 Jan 2017, at 1:07 pm, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
Murray, All you need to do is send a message to <gnso-secs@icann.org> saying you would like to be a member of the RDS PDP WG. And some or all of its sub-groups. The WG Wiki is at https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/2017-01-10+Next+Gen+RDS+PDP+Work.... Alan At 09/01/2017 06:20 AM, Murray McKercher wrote:
Alan, Holly,
I have been largely absent from At large meetings for a while but do follow the large amounts of communications on a weekly basis.
The topic of Whois is why I attended my first ICANN meeting in 2012 in the first place and despite a few distractions along the way remain interested.
Holly, your comments are concise and reflect a very long history on the topic.
Alan, perhaps I can re-engage with At-Large through volunteering to continue with this delicate and most facinating policy dialogue.
Please consider this an expression of interest to continue to volunteer âsome time to ICANN.
Best regards, Murray McKercher Un-affiliated At-large
From: Javier Rua Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 05:49 To: Holly Raiche Cc: ALAC; Alan Greenberg Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: RDS Review
These last few emails are exactly why we need people with institutional memory in At Large and ALAC: so new people, like I, can at least begin to grasp the deep complexities of some issues and not fall into the pitfalls caused when power is coupled with ignorance.
Thank you.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jan 9, 2017, at 6:33 AM, Holly Raiche <<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
And what I didnât add was WHY this issue is so HUGE.
Essentially, the RAA requires that WHOIS information (as defined - including registrantâs name, address, contact details etc - see Clause 3.3.1 in the 2013 RAA) be publicly available. And, as many of you are aware - that goes absolutely up against data retention laws in the EU, Canada, and many other jurisdictions - which means that registrars are either breaking their contract with ICANN or national data retention laws. Fadi - and the Board - recognised those difficulties and established the Expert Working Group (Carlton, for his sins, was a member) that came up with proposals to address those difficulties including a concept of making only limited information on registrants publicly available, with gated access to more layers of information, depending on the status of the requestor. And the Board has approved of the RDS WG to work - within its charter - through EWG proposals. So, in that way too truncated recitation of the outline of the issues, the RDS WG that ALan, Carlton and I are members of, are working through what we do about that fundamental contradiction between basic data retention law and ICANNâs RAA. And trust me, there are many interest groups that have had access to that publicly available personal information and are not happy at the prospect of losing that access.
End result - we are YEARS away from a final policy on who has what access to what level of registrant personal information. Which is why i cringe at the thought of yet another RDS WG - without a final, agreed policy framework on access to registrant data.
And yes, that is only one of the issues raised by Whois.
and what Carlton, Alan and I should be doing is bringing you all in to participate in this issue - I promise you, there is plenty of policy work for years to come - and Iâd love company. BUT PLEASE, not yet another review
Holly
On 9 Jan 2017, at 1:07 pm, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
These memories are kept in all SO/ACs of ICANN for many years... As one said "it's not fun to find a solution for the task which have a solution. It's great to work on the issue which got no solution and enjoy the process" :) --andrei 2017-01-09 13:48 GMT+03:00 Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>:
These last few emails are exactly why we need people with institutional memory in At Large and ALAC: so new people, like I, can at least begin to grasp the deep complexities of some issues and not fall into the pitfalls caused when power is coupled with ignorance.
Thank you.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jan 9, 2017, at 6:33 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
And what I didn’t add was WHY this issue is so HUGE.
Essentially, the RAA requires that WHOIS information (as defined - including registrant’s name, address, contact details etc - see Clause 3.3.1 in the 2013 RAA) be publicly available. And, as many of you are aware - that goes absolutely up against data retention laws in the EU, Canada, and many other jurisdictions - which means that registrars are either breaking their contract with ICANN or national data retention laws. Fadi - and the Board - recognised those difficulties and established the Expert Working Group (Carlton, for his sins, was a member) that came up with proposals to address those difficulties including a concept of making only limited information on registrants publicly available, with gated access to more layers of information, depending on the status of the requestor. And the Board has approved of the RDS WG to work - within its charter - through EWG proposals. So, in that way too truncated recitation of the outline of the issues, the RDS WG that ALan, Carlton and I are members of, are working through what we do about that fundamental contradiction between basic data retention law and ICANN’s RAA. And trust me, there are many interest groups that have had access to that publicly available personal information and are not happy at the prospect of losing that access.
End result - we are YEARS away from a final policy on who has what access to what level of registrant personal information. Which is why i cringe at the thought of yet another RDS WG - without a final, agreed policy framework on access to registrant data.
And yes, that is only one of the issues raised by Whois.
and what Carlton, Alan and I should be doing is bringing you all in to participate in this issue - I promise you, there is plenty of policy work for years to come - and I”d love company. BUT PLEASE, not yet another review
Holly
On 9 Jan 2017, at 1:07 pm, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>
Subject: Re: RDS Review
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders –
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed “limited scope†for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J.
----------------
James Bladel
GNSO Chair
<GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>______________________ _________________________
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)
_______________________________________________ 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)
-- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET
Dear Holly Totally agree. I was not na active member but have detailled followed each layer of discussion and I believe with all the difficulties the lot of power from some will bring, the group will find a solution. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017! On 1/9/17, 8:33 AM, "alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Holly Raiche" <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: And what I didn’t add was WHY this issue is so HUGE. Essentially, the RAA requires that WHOIS information (as defined - including registrant’s name, address, contact details etc - see Clause 3.3.1 in the 2013 RAA) be publicly available. And, as many of you are aware - that goes absolutely up against data retention laws in the EU, Canada, and many other jurisdictions - which means that registrars are either breaking their contract with ICANN or national data retention laws. Fadi - and the Board - recognised those difficulties and established the Expert Working Group (Carlton, for his sins, was a member) that came up with proposals to address those difficulties including a concept of making only limited information on registrants publicly available, with gated access to more layers of information, depending on the status of the requestor. And the Board has approved of the RDS WG to work - within its charter - through EWG proposals. So, in that way too truncated recitation of the outline of the issues, the RDS WG that ALan, Carlton and I are members of, are working through what we do about that fundamental contradiction between basic data retention law and ICANN’s RAA. And trust me, there are many interest groups that have had access to that publicly available personal information and are not happy at the prospect of losing that access. End result - we are YEARS away from a final policy on who has what access to what level of registrant personal information. Which is why i cringe at the thought of yet another RDS WG - without a final, agreed policy framework on access to registrant data. And yes, that is only one of the issues raised by Whois. and what Carlton, Alan and I should be doing is bringing you all in to participate in this issue - I promise you, there is plenty of policy work for years to come - and I”d love company. BUT PLEASE, not yet another review Holly On 9 Jan 2017, at 1:07 pm, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: > I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon. > > You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal. > > The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be. > > Comments please, with some urgency. > > Alan > > >> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> >> Subject: Re: RDS Review >> Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000 >> >> >> Dear Karen and Community Leaders >> >> The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed âlimited scopeâ for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference. >> >> Thank you, >> >> J. >> ---------------- >> James Bladel >> GNSO Chair > <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>_______________________________________________ > 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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
Big +1 -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
And what I didn’t add was WHY this issue is so HUGE.
Essentially, the RAA requires that WHOIS information (as defined - including registrant’s name, address, contact details etc - see Clause 3.3.1 in the 2013 RAA) be publicly available. And, as many of you are aware - that goes absolutely up against data retention laws in the EU, Canada, and many other jurisdictions - which means that registrars are either breaking their contract with ICANN or national data retention laws. Fadi - and the Board - recognised those difficulties and established the Expert Working Group (Carlton, for his sins, was a member) that came up with proposals to address those difficulties including a concept of making only limited information on registrants publicly available, with gated access to more layers of information, depending on the status of the requestor. And the Board has approved of the RDS WG to work - within its charter - through EWG proposals. So, in that way too truncated recitation of the outline of the issues, the RDS WG that ALan, Carlton and I are members of, are working through what we do about that fundamental contradiction between basic data retention law and ICANN’s RAA. And trust me, there are many interest groups that have had access to that publicly available personal information and are not happy at the prospect of losing that access.
End result - we are YEARS away from a final policy on who has what access to what level of registrant personal information. Which is why i cringe at the thought of yet another RDS WG - without a final, agreed policy framework on access to registrant data.
And yes, that is only one of the issues raised by Whois.
and what Carlton, Alan and I should be doing is bringing you all in to participate in this issue - I promise you, there is plenty of policy work for years to come - and I”d love company. BUT PLEASE, not yet another review
Holly
On 9 Jan 2017, at 1:07 pm, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders –
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed “limited scope†for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>______________________
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)
The GNSO has created some dependencies ...and actually just muddied the water a little bit more. #9 says "Ensure no duplication of work" of the GNSO RDS PDP WG. But substantively, Items 1- 4 & 7 does just that> I'm going with the classical meaning here. One can hardly "assess" unless you do what the several WGs have done and/or are doing. Items 1, 5-6 are focus of the CCT RT as we speak so I guess, um, well... -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community involvement that the earlier proposal.
The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
Comments please, with some urgency.
Alan
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>
Subject: Re: RDS Review Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
Dear Karen and Community Leaders –
The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our feedback and concerns with the proposed “limited scope†for the upcoming RDS review. The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with this team for your reference.
Thank you,
J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair
_______________________________________________ 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)
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
Javier Rua -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Murray McKercher -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Vanda Scartezini