Talking points for Board consultation on RDRS
- A system such as the RDRS/SSAD is needed, but its use by Registrars (and Registries) should be mandatory. - Enhancements will be needed. Some level of requestor registration and authentication would be an asset, but it must not be overly cumbersome. - Although the RDRS is not perfect, it should not be shut down until an enhanced or replacement system is available. - The system must include legitimate access to Privacy/Proxy beneficial user information - Implementation of national laws and regulations will introduce specific registrar and registry requirements. ICANN policy needs to ensure a level playing field. - The At-Large Community hopes that a mandatory and uniform system will strengthen trust and transparency between end users and businesses - ICANN org should consider reassessing the operational cost of implementing SSAD recommendations as it will provide insight in how those specifications should be altered.
I agree Alan. Regarding "Improvements will be needed. Some level of registration and authentication of applicants would be an advantage, but it should not be too cumbersome." Why is the digital signature system not used? There are many governments that offer digital signature services. Interested parties in each country should digitally certify themselves before that local system and at the other end would be ICANN: I don't know if each government would do it for free or for a fee. There are private providers of digital signature services, but I don't know the cost at this time. Regards Alberto De: Alan Greenberg via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Enviado el: domingo, 27 de octubre de 2024 00:18 Para: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: [CPWG] Talking points for Board consultation on RDRS * A system such as the RDRS/SSAD is needed, but its use by Registrars (and Registries) should be mandatory. * Enhancements will be needed. Some level of requestor registration and authentication would be an asset, but it must not be overly cumbersome. * Although the RDRS is not perfect, it should not be shut down until an enhanced or replacement system is available. * The system must include legitimate access to Privacy/Proxy beneficial user information * Implementation of national laws and regulations will introduce specific registrar and registry requirements. ICANN policy needs to ensure a level playing field. * The At-Large Community hopes that a mandatory and uniform system will strengthen trust and transparency between end users and businesses * ICANN org should consider reassessing the operational cost of implementing SSAD recommendations as it will provide insight in how those specifications should be altered.
I guess that is one option that would need to be evaluated. Alan On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 4:03 PM <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:
I agree Alan. Regarding "Improvements will be needed. Some level of registration and authentication of applicants would be an advantage, but it should not be too cumbersome."
Why is the digital signature system not used?
There are many governments that offer digital signature services. Interested parties in each country should digitally certify themselves before that local system and at the other end would be ICANN: I don't know if each government would do it for free or for a fee.
There are private providers of digital signature services, but I don't know the cost at this time.
Regards
Alberto
*De:* Alan Greenberg via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Enviado el:* domingo, 27 de octubre de 2024 00:18 *Para:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Asunto:* [CPWG] Talking points for Board consultation on RDRS
- A system such as the RDRS/SSAD is needed, but its use by Registrars (and Registries) should be mandatory. - Enhancements will be needed. Some level of requestor registration and authentication would be an asset, but it must not be overly cumbersome. - Although the RDRS is not perfect, it should not be shut down until an enhanced or replacement system is available. - The system must include legitimate access to Privacy/Proxy beneficial user information - Implementation of national laws and regulations will introduce specific registrar and registry requirements. ICANN policy needs to ensure a level playing field.
- The At-Large Community hopes that a mandatory and uniform system will strengthen trust and transparency between end users and businesses - ICANN org should consider reassessing the operational cost of implementing SSAD recommendations as it will provide insight in how those specifications should be altered.
The one that Alberto points out is a very good option, with a certification based on a bockchain chain and a token the entire process would be greatly simplified. *Sergio Salinas Porto**Presidente Internauta Argentina - LACRALO/ICANN <https://atlarge.icann.org/ralos/lacralo>**Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar/>/FeTIA <http://www.fetia.org.ar/>**FUILAC- Federación de Usuarios de Internet de LAC <https://fuilac.org>**facebook: salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> **twitter: sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>**Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819**"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra * * conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano* El dom, 27 oct 2024 a las 17:04, Alberto Soto via CPWG (<cpwg@icann.org>) escribió:
I agree Alan. Regarding "Improvements will be needed. Some level of registration and authentication of applicants would be an advantage, but it should not be too cumbersome."
Why is the digital signature system not used?
There are many governments that offer digital signature services. Interested parties in each country should digitally certify themselves before that local system and at the other end would be ICANN: I don't know if each government would do it for free or for a fee.
There are private providers of digital signature services, but I don't know the cost at this time.
Regards
Alberto
*De:* Alan Greenberg via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Enviado el:* domingo, 27 de octubre de 2024 00:18 *Para:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Asunto:* [CPWG] Talking points for Board consultation on RDRS
- A system such as the RDRS/SSAD is needed, but its use by Registrars (and Registries) should be mandatory. - Enhancements will be needed. Some level of requestor registration and authentication would be an asset, but it must not be overly cumbersome. - Although the RDRS is not perfect, it should not be shut down until an enhanced or replacement system is available. - The system must include legitimate access to Privacy/Proxy beneficial user information - Implementation of national laws and regulations will introduce specific registrar and registry requirements. ICANN policy needs to ensure a level playing field.
- The At-Large Community hopes that a mandatory and uniform system will strengthen trust and transparency between end users and businesses - ICANN org should consider reassessing the operational cost of implementing SSAD recommendations as it will provide insight in how those specifications should be altered.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
alberto＠soto.net.ar -
Sergio Salinas Porto