Fwd: Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart
At the last GNSO Council meeting, the Whois Review Team issue was discussed, specifically the inability of the GNSO Council to submit a single statement addressing the Board's question on advice on how to address the 16 Recommendations due to the wide range of views held by the various SGs and Constituencies. I made a comment that I found it rather unfortunate that a statement could not be submitted, even if it was just a summary of the various views held. That suggestion was accepted and I am attaching a draft of the positions held. As an aside, one of the replies to my suggestion was that the GNSO did not need to oversee such a summary, but rather ICANN staff could have done it and just given it to the Board. I was very taken aback by this, because as some of you may remember, there has been a LOT of discussion about staff taking GNSO reports and statements (and those of other groups such as the ALAC), summarizing them (and perhaps emphasizing some aspects over others) and giving them to the Board. The gist of this discussion is that staff should not be summarizing (and perhaps editorializing), but rather the Board should see the SO/AC position. So this suggestion was almost a wish to return to the bad old days. I did point out that it was fine for policy staff to be involved in such a condensation of positions, but that the GNSO. The attached paper is the result. Alan
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@icann.org> To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:11:21 -0700 Subject: [council] Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart
Dear All,
Please find attached for your review & revision, a chart that summarizes the various views of the SG/C with respect to each of the WHOIS RT Final Report's Recommendations.
The information included in the Chart was obtained from statements made on email lists & formal statements that were submitted. Please review them carefully to make sure that the description accurately captures the sentiment of your SG/C.
I would appreciate receiving any comments or updates by COB 2 October, 2012.
All the best,
Margie
________
Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ________
Hi Alan First - thank you for the work you re doing on this issue. I have modified my suggestion on questions for the Board to take into account the SSAC recommendations on the WHois Report. Specifically, they call for a high level, all inclusive (that's us) stakeholder group to develop a policy that addresses the overall purpose of whois - addressing the following: • Why are data collected? • What purpose will the data serve? • Who collects the data? • Where is the data stored and how long is it stored? • Where is the data escrowed and how long is it escrowed? • Who needs the data and why? • Who needs access to logs of access to the data and why? The point the SSAC are making is that we need to think through why, how and who collects the data, how is it used and accessed. Only when those questions are answered can we start on the recommendations. I tend to agree with them - but happy to support the movement on the recommendations identified as not needing a PDP - and looking at the GNSO document - what is being called for is a policy Holly On 28/09/2012, at 9:48 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At the last GNSO Council meeting, the Whois Review Team issue was discussed, specifically the inability of the GNSO Council to submit a single statement addressing the Board's question on advice on how to address the 16 Recommendations due to the wide range of views held by the various SGs and Constituencies.
I made a comment that I found it rather unfortunate that a statement could not be submitted, even if it was just a summary of the various views held. That suggestion was accepted and I am attaching a draft of the positions held.
As an aside, one of the replies to my suggestion was that the GNSO did not need to oversee such a summary, but rather ICANN staff could have done it and just given it to the Board. I was very taken aback by this, because as some of you may remember, there has been a LOT of discussion about staff taking GNSO reports and statements (and those of other groups such as the ALAC), summarizing them (and perhaps emphasizing some aspects over others) and giving them to the Board. The gist of this discussion is that staff should not be summarizing (and perhaps editorializing), but rather the Board should see the SO/AC position. So this suggestion was almost a wish to return to the bad old days. I did point out that it was fine for policy staff to be involved in such a condensation of positions, but that the GNSO. The attached paper is the result.
Alan
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@icann.org> To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:11:21 -0700 Subject: [council] Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart
Dear All,
Please find attached for your review & revision, a chart that summarizes the various views of the SG/C with respect to each of the WHOIS RT Final Report's Recommendations.
The information included in the Chart was obtained from statements made on email lists & formal statements that were submitted. Please review them carefully to make sure that the description accurately captures the sentiment of your SG/C.
I would appreciate receiving any comments or updates by COB 2 October, 2012.
All the best,
Margie
________
Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ________ <WHOIS Review Team Recommendations.doc>_______________________________________________ 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. I note that while the SSAC recommendations clearly make sense, and the outcomes could change the Review Team recommendations, it is not going to happen quickly - some of the base issues are the ones that we have been debating for years. We do not want the review team Recs shelved pending the more glorious project. Alan At 28/09/2012 02:43 AM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Hi Alan
First - thank you for the work you re doing on this issue. I have modified my suggestion on questions for the Board to take into account the SSAC recommendations on the WHois Report. Specifically, they call for a high level, all inclusive (that's us) stakeholder group to develop a policy that addresses the overall purpose of whois - addressing the following: Why are data collected? What purpose will the data serve? Who collects the data? Where is the data stored and how long is it stored? Where is the data escrowed and how long is it escrowed? Who needs the data and why? Who needs access to logs of access to the data and why?
The point the SSAC are making is that we need to think through why, how and who collects the data, how is it used and accessed. Only when those questions are answered can we start on the recommendations. I tend to agree with them - but happy to support the movement on the recommendations identified as not needing a PDP - and looking at the GNSO document - what is being called for is a policy
Holly
On 28/09/2012, at 9:48 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At the last GNSO Council meeting, the Whois Review Team issue was discussed, specifically the inability of the GNSO Council to submit a single statement addressing the Board's question on advice on how to address the 16 Recommendations due to the wide range of views held by the various SGs and Constituencies.
I made a comment that I found it rather unfortunate that a statement could not be submitted, even if it was just a summary of the various views held. That suggestion was accepted and I am attaching a draft of the positions held.
As an aside, one of the replies to my suggestion was that the GNSO did not need to oversee such a summary, but rather ICANN staff could have done it and just given it to the Board. I was very taken aback by this, because as some of you may remember, there has been a LOT of discussion about staff taking GNSO reports and statements (and those of other groups such as the ALAC), summarizing them (and perhaps emphasizing some aspects over others) and giving them to the Board. The gist of this discussion is that staff should not be summarizing (and perhaps editorializing), but rather the Board should see the SO/AC position. So this suggestion was almost a wish to return to the bad old days. I did point out that it was fine for policy staff to be involved in such a condensation of positions, but that the GNSO. The attached paper is the result.
Alan
From: Margie Milam <<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>Margie.Milam@icann.org> To: "<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org" <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:11:21 -0700 Subject: [council] Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart
Dear All,
Please find attached for your review & revision, a chart that summarizes the various views of the SG/C with respect to each of the WHOIS RT Final Report's Recommendations.
The information included in the Chart was obtained from statements made on email lists & formal statements that were submitted. Please review them carefully to make sure that the description accurately captures the sentiment of your SG/C.
I would appreciate receiving any comments or updates by COB 2 October, 2012.
All the best,
Margie
________
Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ________ <WHOIS Review Team Recommendations.doc>_______________________________________________ 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 ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
On 28 September 2012 09:39, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
We do not want the review team Recs shelved pending the more glorious project.
Vigorously agreed. The high-level review suggested by the SSAC -- which may very well help design a WHOIS NG or even full replacement -- should not hinder, nor be used as an excuse to impede, the addressing of immediate short term deficiencies. Perfect not being the enemy of the good and all that... My fear is that those against robust and trustworthy WHOIS -- right now, basically (what I would call) extreme privacy advocated and an industry resistant to change -- will use the SSAC as a crutch to delay or dilute the RT recommendations. While I don't attribute this to the SSAC, it is a common tactic within ICANN to resist change by ask anew for first-princples re-evaluation of need. Either that, or definitions. - Evan
Dear All, Whilst the SSAC has recommended to the Board to defer all activities until the Registration Data Policy is created, then it follows that there could be a considerable delay. The implications in my mind could mean the suspension of the "Thick Whois Charter" etc. However, I am of the view that the Registration Data Policy should be initiated and there can be things done simultaneously to ensure that things are expedited. To this end, I would suggest the following: However, if we take the view that things can be developed simultaneously, it follows that there are things can be initiated in the interim pending a Registration Data Policy and this could include things like getting the GNSO to do the following:- *Phase 1* · Finalize GNSO Whois Studies [should have been completed in 2012]; · Draft paper modeled around the findings Council of European National TLD Registries as a starting point for policy discussion on the matter and initiate Public Consultations; · Mapping out models to include potential scenarios of architectural solutions:- o Model 1 – Thick Whois o Model 2- Thin Whois; o Model 3- Mixture of Thick and Thin Whois; o Model 4- other. [Initiating Public Consultations to receive feedback on the models] Upon receipt of the results of the GNSO Studies, to work out the different possible Models that are workable. Assuming that within Phase 1, the Registration Data Policy would be completed. *Phase 2* · Finalize the models based on the Registration Data Policy and results of the GNSO Whois Studies; [Public Consultations and feedback] · Leverage the discussions of the paper on the findings of the Council of European National TLD Registries as a starting point for policy discussion on the matter factoring in the GNSO Whois Studies · Harmonization in accordance with the Registration Data Policy and finalizing solution for Whois [public consultations] *Phase 3* · Launch the solution What was unequivocally clear from the Whois Review Final Report, that there were competing views on the use and dissemination of data. Whilst recommendations were made there was no concrete discussion on the use and dissemination of data. I agree with Alan that the “recommendations clearly make sense” and perceive as “fair comment” his views that these are issues been debated for years. However, I would add caution to the wind and say that they have been long debated without clear concrete resolutions and outcomes and this can be attributed to the entire community. Which is why I find the SSAC’s use of the “blind men and the elephant” and apt analogy of describing the state of how different “interests” perceive and describe remedies and solutions or approaches. The issues is not that they are blind nor is it about insinuating incompetence, it just shows how people wrangle and hold onto diverse positions without fully comprehending the situation from a holistic manner. Having said that there were critical controversial issues from divergent legislative approaches from prioritization of rights (privacy, data protection, intellectual property) and liability of intermediaries etc. Of relevance, are the current GNSO Whois studies[1] <#_ftn1>. If we examine the SSAC’s strict recommendation where the Board should defer all activities in finding a solution on the Whois until there is a Registration Data Policy[2] <#_ftn2> then it follows there could be a considerable delay and it would also mean that the Thick Whois Charter is effectively suspended in the interim pending resolution of the Registration Data Policy. The SSAC holds the view that the Board should defer all activities in finding a solution on the Whois until this is done. However, if we take the view that things can be developed simultaneously, it follows that there are things can be initiated in the interim pending a Registration Data Policy. ------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/studies see: Whois Misuse Study; Whois Proxy and Privacy Abuse; Whois Registrant Identification and Whois Proxy & Privacy Relay and Reveal Study which the Report says is due for completion in 2012 and cost $530,000. The considerable delay in concluding those Reports where now we are told that these may be completed in 2013. [2] <#_ftnref2> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-055-en.pdf
Apologies on the two repetitious paras [ however]....was rushing... On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
Whilst the SSAC has recommended to the Board to defer all activities until the Registration Data Policy is created, then it follows that there could be a considerable delay. The implications in my mind could mean the suspension of the "Thick Whois Charter" etc.
However, I am of the view that the Registration Data Policy should be initiated and there can be things done simultaneously to ensure that things are expedited. To this end, I would suggest the following:
However, if we take the view that things can be developed simultaneously, it follows that there are things can be initiated in the interim pending a Registration Data Policy and this could include things like getting the GNSO to do the following:-
*Phase 1*
· Finalize GNSO Whois Studies [should have been completed in 2012];
· Draft paper modeled around the findings Council of European National TLD Registries as a starting point for policy discussion on the matter and initiate Public Consultations;
· Mapping out models to include potential scenarios of architectural solutions:-
o Model 1 – Thick Whois
o Model 2- Thin Whois;
o Model 3- Mixture of Thick and Thin Whois;
o Model 4- other.
[Initiating Public Consultations to receive feedback on the models]
Upon receipt of the results of the GNSO Studies, to work out the different possible Models that are workable. Assuming that within Phase 1, the Registration Data Policy would be completed.
*Phase 2*
· Finalize the models based on the Registration Data Policy and results of the GNSO Whois Studies; [Public Consultations and feedback]
· Leverage the discussions of the paper on the findings of the Council of European National TLD Registries as a starting point for policy discussion on the matter factoring in the GNSO Whois Studies
· Harmonization in accordance with the Registration Data Policy and finalizing solution for Whois [public consultations]
*Phase 3*
· Launch the solution
What was unequivocally clear from the Whois Review Final Report, that there were competing views on the use and dissemination of data. Whilst recommendations were made there was no concrete discussion on the use and dissemination of data. I agree with Alan that the “recommendations clearly make sense” and perceive as “fair comment” his views that these are issues been debated for years. However, I would add caution to the wind and say that they have been long debated without clear concrete resolutions and outcomes and this can be attributed to the entire community. Which is why I find the SSAC’s use of the “blind men and the elephant” and apt analogy of describing the state of how different “interests” perceive and describe remedies and solutions or approaches. The issues is not that they are blind nor is it about insinuating incompetence, it just shows how people wrangle and hold onto diverse positions without fully comprehending the situation from a holistic manner.
Having said that there were critical controversial issues from divergent legislative approaches from prioritization of rights (privacy, data protection, intellectual property) and liability of intermediaries etc. Of relevance, are the current GNSO Whois studies[1] <#13a0f1f526a5375a__ftn1>. If we examine the SSAC’s strict recommendation where the Board should defer all activities in finding a solution on the Whois until there is a Registration Data Policy[2] <#13a0f1f526a5375a__ftn2> then it follows there could be a considerable delay and it would also mean that the Thick Whois Charter is effectively suspended in the interim pending resolution of the Registration Data Policy. The SSAC holds the view that the Board should defer all activities in finding a solution on the Whois until this is done.
However, if we take the view that things can be developed simultaneously, it follows that there are things can be initiated in the interim pending a Registration Data Policy.
------------------------------
[1] <#13a0f1f526a5375a__ftnref1> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/studies see: Whois Misuse Study; Whois Proxy and Privacy Abuse; Whois Registrant Identification and Whois Proxy & Privacy Relay and Reveal Study which the Report says is due for completion in 2012 and cost $530,000. The considerable delay in concluding those Reports where now we are told that these may be completed in 2013.
[2] <#13a0f1f526a5375a__ftnref2> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-055-en.pdf
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Hi Evan I usually agree with you - and certainly agree that delaying tactics have been a prominent feature of how ICANN (doesn't) work. But the points that the SSAC makes are well made - it boils down to please define the problem before you try to solve it. Otherwise, you risk coming up with the wrong answer. And certainly when I attended the briefing on Whois in Prague, there was a good discussion pointing out, inter alia, that somewhere we need to define the level of accuracy required. So maybe we support immediate implementation of what is (and has been, for sometime) required - but support a long term discussion on the issues SSAc raises. Holly On 29/09/2012, at 1:14 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 28 September 2012 09:39, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
We do not want the review team Recs shelved pending the more glorious project.
Vigorously agreed.
The high-level review suggested by the SSAC -- which may very well help design a WHOIS NG or even full replacement -- should not hinder, nor be used as an excuse to impede, the addressing of immediate short term deficiencies. Perfect not being the enemy of the good and all that...
My fear is that those against robust and trustworthy WHOIS -- right now, basically (what I would call) extreme privacy advocated and an industry resistant to change -- will use the SSAC as a crutch to delay or dilute the RT recommendations.
While I don't attribute this to the SSAC, it is a common tactic within ICANN to resist change by ask anew for first-princples re-evaluation of need. Either that, or definitions.
- Evan
Snip ...... it boils down to please define the problem before you try to solve it. Otherwise, you risk coming up with the wrong answer. +1 and there are things that can be done simultaneously to address concerns on the issue of delay
And certainly when I attended the briefing on Whois in Prague, there was a good discussion pointing out, inter alia, that somewhere we need to define the level of accuracy required. So maybe we support immediate implementation of what is (and has been, for sometime) required - but support a long term discussion on the issues SSAc raises.
Holly On 29/09/2012, at 1:14 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 28 September 2012 09:39, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
We do not want the review team Recs shelved pending the more glorious project.
Vigorously agreed.
The high-level review suggested by the SSAC -- which may very well help design a WHOIS NG or even full replacement -- should not hinder, nor be used as an excuse to impede, the addressing of immediate short term deficiencies. Perfect not being the enemy of the good and all that...
My fear is that those against robust and trustworthy WHOIS -- right now, basically (what I would call) extreme privacy advocated and an industry resistant to change -- will use the SSAC as a crutch to delay or dilute the RT recommendations.
While I don't attribute this to the SSAC, it is a common tactic within ICANN to resist change by ask anew for first-princples re-evaluation of need. Either that, or definitions.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
The ALAC Statement of March 2011 on "Scope of Work and Roadmap" for the WHOIS Review Team laid out the framework of our expectations on the work of the Review Team. Read it again and you will see our call for a declaration of principle driving WHOIS. IMO they did just that. The WHOIS Review Team Draft report made it clear that "‘a clear, concise and well-‐communicated’ WHOIS Policy was necessary and needed. The ALAC Statement on the Draft report - the one voted 13-0 of March 2012 - endorsed that position. The SSAC statement bounces the rubble. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
Thanks Holly. I note that while the SSAC recommendations clearly make sense, and the outcomes could change the Review Team recommendations, it is not going to happen quickly - some of the base issues are the ones that we have been debating for years. We do not want the review team Recs shelved pending the more glorious project.
Alan
Hi Alan
First - thank you for the work you re doing on this issue. I have modified my suggestion on questions for the Board to take into account the SSAC recommendations on the WHois Report. Specifically, they call for a high level, all inclusive (that's us) stakeholder group to develop a policy that addresses the overall purpose of whois - addressing the following: •Why are data collected? •What purpose will the data serve? •Who collects the data? •Where is the data stored and how long is it stored? •Where is the data escrowed and how long is it escrowed? •Who needs the data and why? •Who needs access to logs of access to the data and why?
The point the SSAC are making is that we need to think through why, how and who collects the data, how is it used and accessed. Only when those questions are answered can we start on the recommendations. I tend to agree with them - but happy to support the movement on the recommendations identified as not needing a PDP - and looking at the GNSO document - what is being called for is a policy
Holly
On 28/09/2012, at 9:48 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At the last GNSO Council meeting, the Whois Review Team issue was discussed, specifically the inability of the GNSO Council to submit a single statement addressing the Board's question on advice on how to address the 16 Recommendations due to the wide range of views held by the various SGs and Constituencies.
I made a comment that I found it rather unfortunate that a statement could not be submitted, even if it was just a summary of the various views held. That suggestion was accepted and I am attaching a draft of the positions held.
As an aside, one of the replies to my suggestion was that the GNSO did not need to oversee such a summary, but rather ICANN staff could have done it and just given it to the Board. I was very taken aback by this, because as some of you may remember, there has been a LOT of discussion about staff taking GNSO reports and statements (and those of other groups such as the ALAC), summarizing them (and perhaps emphasizing some aspects over others) and giving them to the Board. The gist of this discussion is that staff should not be summarizing (and perhaps editorializing), but rather the Board should see the SO/AC position. So this suggestion was almost a wish to return to the bad old days. I did point out that it was fine for policy staff to be involved in such a condensation of positions, but that the GNSO. The attached paper is the result.
Alan
From: Margie Milam <<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org> Margie.Milam@icann.org> To: "<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org" <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:11:21 -0700 Subject: [council] Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart
Dear All,
Please find attached for your review & revision, a chart that summarizes the various views of the SG/C with respect to each of the WHOIS RT Final Report's Recommendations.
The information included in the Chart was obtained from statements made on email lists & formal statements that were submitted. Please review them carefully to make sure that the description accurately captures the sentiment of your SG/C.
I would appreciate receiving any comments or updates by COB 2 October,
At 28/09/2012 02:43 AM, Holly Raiche wrote: 2012.
All the best,
Margie
________
Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ________
<WHOIS Review Team Recommendations.doc>_______________________________________________ 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 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...)
HI Carlton I agree that the very first statement in the Whois Scope of work and in their Final Report, and their Final Final Report, they very carefully and thoroughly explained - in their first recommendation- the confusion surrounding Whois policies - and why what is needed is a very clear and thorough statement of policy. And yes, we endorsed that. What I liked about the SSAC statement was the clarity with which they explained the need to first address identifying what the various issues are and how best they might be addressed. So I am not clear on why you say that the SSAC 'bounces the rubble'. I think it is possible to reconcile the two reports (noting the concern that the SSAC recommendations may be used as yet another excuse to do nothing). Specifically, BOTH reports are very clear about the need for a policy. It is possible to read the Final Final report as encompassing the SSAC recommendation - first understanding the problem(s) to be solved, and then providing the solutions. So in the interests of supporting action on the issue, we can support the Final Final recommendations - stressing that their first recommendation - the development of a policy - is what the SSAC is calling for. It's a bit slight of hand, but does allow us to push for action that is informed by a full appreciation of the problem(s) that are to be solved. Holly On 02/10/2012, at 7:07 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
The ALAC Statement of March 2011 on "Scope of Work and Roadmap" for the WHOIS Review Team laid out the framework of our expectations on the work of the Review Team. Read it again and you will see our call for a declaration of principle driving WHOIS. IMO they did just that.
The WHOIS Review Team Draft report made it clear that "‘a clear, concise and well-‐communicated’ WHOIS Policy was necessary and needed.
The ALAC Statement on the Draft report - the one voted 13-0 of March 2012 - endorsed that position.
The SSAC statement bounces the rubble.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Thanks Holly. I note that while the SSAC recommendations clearly make sense, and the outcomes could change the Review Team recommendations, it is not going to happen quickly - some of the base issues are the ones that we have been debating for years. We do not want the review team Recs shelved pending the more glorious project.
Alan
At 28/09/2012 02:43 AM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Hi Alan
First - thank you for the work you re doing on this issue. I have modified my suggestion on questions for the Board to take into account the SSAC recommendations on the WHois Report. Specifically, they call for a high level, all inclusive (that's us) stakeholder group to develop a policy that addresses the overall purpose of whois - addressing the following: •Why are data collected? •What purpose will the data serve? •Who collects the data? •Where is the data stored and how long is it stored? •Where is the data escrowed and how long is it escrowed? •Who needs the data and why? •Who needs access to logs of access to the data and why?
The point the SSAC are making is that we need to think through why, how and who collects the data, how is it used and accessed. Only when those questions are answered can we start on the recommendations. I tend to agree with them - but happy to support the movement on the recommendations identified as not needing a PDP - and looking at the GNSO document - what is being called for is a policy
Holly
On 28/09/2012, at 9:48 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At the last GNSO Council meeting, the Whois Review Team issue was discussed, specifically the inability of the GNSO Council to submit a single statement addressing the Board's question on advice on how to address the 16 Recommendations due to the wide range of views held by the various SGs and Constituencies.
I made a comment that I found it rather unfortunate that a statement could not be submitted, even if it was just a summary of the various views held. That suggestion was accepted and I am attaching a draft of the positions held.
As an aside, one of the replies to my suggestion was that the GNSO did not need to oversee such a summary, but rather ICANN staff could have done it and just given it to the Board. I was very taken aback by this, because as some of you may remember, there has been a LOT of discussion about staff taking GNSO reports and statements (and those of other groups such as the ALAC), summarizing them (and perhaps emphasizing some aspects over others) and giving them to the Board. The gist of this discussion is that staff should not be summarizing (and perhaps editorializing), but rather the Board should see the SO/AC position. So this suggestion was almost a wish to return to the bad old days. I did point out that it was fine for policy staff to be involved in such a condensation of positions, but that the GNSO. The attached paper is the result.
Alan
From: Margie Milam <<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>Margie.Milam@icann.org> To: "<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org" <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:11:21 -0700 Subject: [council] Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart
Dear All,
Please find attached for your review & revision, a chart that summarizes the various views of the SG/C with respect to each of the WHOIS RT Final Report's Recommendations.
The information included in the Chart was obtained from statements made on email lists & formal statements that were submitted. Please review them carefully to make sure that the description accurately captures the sentiment of your SG/C.
I would appreciate receiving any comments or updates by COB 2 October, 2012.
All the best,
Margie
________
Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ________ <WHOIS Review Team Recommendations.doc>_______________________________________________ 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 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...)
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>wrote:
It is possible to read the Final Final report as encompassing the SSAC recommendation - first understanding the problem(s) to be solved, and then providing the solutions.
Agreed. Hence my rubble reference. :-) - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro