URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report. I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns. The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues. THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency. Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline. WORD and PDF formats are attached. Alan
Hi Alan, I have strong concerns that the current recommendations are anti-choice, namely that they prevent registrants from even consenting to publication of their full contact detail (i.e. all the contact details that have historically been in the WHOIS). According to the Feb 11, 2019 draft version at: https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report recommendation #10 forcibly redacts the registrant Name, Street, Postal Code, Phone, Fax (which is completely missing in the table!). Email is also redacted, subject to recommendation #13. Footnote 16 says it can be replaced by a form or anonymized email, but that suffers from the issues I pointed out at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-February/000853.html Now, Recommendation #13 also refers to "Recommendation X" (non-existent!) which would allow the Registered Name Holder to provider consent for publication of just its email address. However, that doesn't seem to allow the registrant to consent to publication of *ALL* of its contact details (i.e. name, phone number, fax, full mailing address, etc.). Many registrants *want* that fully published, and these recommendations take away that choice from the registrant. The same issue exists for the tech contact. Some folks want that separate contact's full info to be collected and published, but aren't going to be able to even consent to that (again, it just says "Yes" for "Redacted", without the footnote to consent to publication). That secondary contact point is going to be useful if the primary contact has downtime, becomes invalid, is on vacation, or is otherwise unavailable. With just 1 visible contact, it creates a single point of failure, if communications are missed. In essence, these recommendations are overapplying the GDPR (e.g. to non-persons, and to those outside the EU), *even* if the registrant wants to fully consent to full publication of their own data (Rec #17 shows that overapplication). It takes a "father knows best" approach, to disregard the registrant's own wishes and doesn't give them the opportunity to consent, to exercise their own choices. By all means, if someone wants to not publish their data, respect that choice. But, those who *do* want to publish their data are totally disrespected by the current recommendations. Folks have many legitimate reasons for wanting to fully publish their own data, including not wanting their communications to be intercepted by the registrar, and also to be able to openly demonstrate that they own their domains! The WHOIS is supposed to be the authoritative record of domain ownership (simply putting the data on the website associated with a domain name is *evidence* of ownership, but isn't *proof* -- the WHOIS is the proof; e.g. the website or nameservers can be hacked, and have false info in the "evidence", but the WHOIS itself should always show the true owner). The text of the recommendations is also open to interpretation, which is unwise. e.g. on page 40 it says openly: "The Team could not come to agreement on this issue and as such no recommendation is included in this Final Report in relation to whether optional also means, optional or required for the registrar to offer." i.e. if one can't even agree on what the recommendations *say*, that's just wishy-washy, and doesn't help anyone. Recommendations should have clarity, not purposeful ambiguity. By forcing more info to be private (even against the wishes of the registrant), this will erode the trust of the entire DNS. BTW, for Recommendation #16, one might want to mention that registrars routinely accurately determine the location of registrants, in order to make sure that the correct sales tax is charged to them. I'm not too concerned about loss of thick WHOIS (.com has proven that thin WHOIS can work). Copying the message originator (on page 2 of the draft letter) isn't going to work, as it would *enable* spam (unless the originator is somehow verified in advance). This was pointed out in the first paragraph of: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-February/000853.html Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:28 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Thank you Alan I think you have captured the outcomes of the CPWG discussions very well. I am happy with this statement and have no further comments Holly
On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan <ALAC-Statement-v01.docx><ALAC-Statement-v01.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...)
I agree with everything. particularly with the observation about email. Regards Alberto Enviado desde mi iPhone El 15 feb. 2019, a la(s) 00:17, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió:
Thank you Alan
I think you have captured the outcomes of the CPWG discussions very well. I am happy with this statement and have no further comments
Holly
On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan <ALAC-Statement-v01.docx><ALAC-Statement-v01.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...)
Thanks Holly. Alan At 14/02/2019 10:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: Thank you Alan I think you have captured the outcomes of the CPWG discussions very well. I am happy with this statement and have no further comments Holly On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report. I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns. The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues. THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency. Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline. WORD and PDF formats are attached. Alan <ALAC-Statement-v01.docx><ALAC-Statement-v01.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<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... )
Thanks - I cannot join this evening’s (CET) CPWG call and therefore want to express my support for the statement. If it comes to a vote during the call then please include my explicit endorsement. Just a comment, and if not relevant then ignore, but I took the final report from 11 February that was sent to the GNSO council on the 12th as a reference to see what our concerns apply to. I am somewhat confused: - Rec#16 states ‘that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.’ Our response says ‘The report recommends that contracted parties will not need to perform any level of geographic differentiation due to the difficulty of determining the location of the registrant.’ I cannot find that argument (‘due to’) in the draft final report. However rec#5 requires registrars to a.o. collect address- incl country data from registrants. So on the one hand hand the data are collected and (should be) accurate, and on the other it is ‘difficult’ to ‘determine the location of the registrant’? - Rec#5 lists the ‘data elements to be collected where some data elements are automatically generated and, as indicated below, in some cases it is optional for the registered name holder to provide those data elements. The ‘tech fields’ (name, phone and email) in the ‘data elements’ table are not ‘indicated’ as being ‘optional’. Like for instance the ‘organization’ and ‘fax’ fields of the ‘registrant’ (= ‘opt.’) . Then there is a note ‘For the purpose of the Technical contact, which is optional for the Registered Name Holder to complete (and if the Registrar provides this option)’. Etc. Why are the technical contact data elements not labeled in the table as being ‘(opt.)’? thanks again, with regards Bastiaan *** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***
On 15 Feb 2019, at 04:17, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thank you Alan
I think you have captured the outcomes of the CPWG discussions very well. I am happy with this statement and have no further comments
Holly
On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan <ALAC-Statement-v01.docx><ALAC-Statement-v01.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...)
At 15/02/2019 02:45 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
Thanks - I cannot join this evening’s (CET) CPWG call and therefore want to express my support for the statement. If it comes to a vote during the call then please include my explicit endorsement.
Thanks! If other ALAC Members are in the same position, a message of support prior to the meeting will allow us to know if there is sufficient support.
Just a comment, and if not relevant then ignore, but I took the final report from 11 February that was sent to the GNSO council on the 12th as a reference to see what our concerns apply to. I am somewhat confused:
- Rec#16 states ‘that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.’
Our response says ‘The report recommends that contracted parties will not need to perform any level of geographic differentiation due to the difficulty of determining the location of the registrant.’
I cannot find that argument (‘due to’) in the draft final report. However rec#5 requires registrars to a.o. collect address- incl country data from registrants. So on the one hand hand the data are collected and (should be) accurate, and on the other it is ‘difficult’ to ‘determine the location of the registrant’?
The contracted parties have said there is too much risk of incorrectly identifying whether GDPR is applicable to the registrant. We both have the same difficulty in reconciling these two facts. The other factor is that a registrar outside of the EU who has resellers "might" have a reseller in the EU (ie a "processor") without their knowledge be cause resellers can have resellers can have resellers... and the original registrar has no idea who they are. That should be fixed by requiring that they know!
- Rec#5 lists the ‘data elements to be collected where some data elements are automatically generated and, as indicated below, in some cases it is optional for the registered name holder to provide those data elements.
The ‘tech fields’ (name, phone and email) in the ‘data elements’ table are not ‘indicated’ as being ‘optional’. Like for instance the ‘organization’ and ‘fax’ fields of the ‘registrant’ (= ‘opt.’) . Then there is a note ‘For the purpose of the Technical contact, which is optional for the Registered Name Holder to complete (and if the Registrar provides this option)’. Etc. Why are the technical contact data elements not labeled in the table as being ‘(opt.)’?
I have pointed out that apparent discrepancy and presume it will be fixed. Alan
thanks again, with regards Bastiaan
*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***
On 15 Feb 2019, at 04:17, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thank you Alan
I think you have captured the outcomes of the CPWG discussions very well. I am happy with this statement and have no further comments
Holly
On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan
<ALAC-Statement-v01.docx><ALAC-Statement-v01.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...)
My support as well. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: "Bastiaan Goslings" <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>; "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: "CPWG" <cpwg@icann.org>; "ALAC" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [CPWG] [ALAC] URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report At 15/02/2019 02:45 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
Thanks - I cannot join this evening’s (CET) CPWG call and therefore want to express my support for the statement. If it comes to a vote during the call then please include my explicit endorsement.
Thanks! If other ALAC Members are in the same position, a message of support prior to the meeting will allow us to know if there is sufficient support.
Just a comment, and if not relevant then ignore, but I took the final report from 11 February that was sent to the GNSO council on the 12th as a reference to see what our concerns apply to. I am somewhat confused:
- Rec#16 states ‘that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.’
Our response says ‘The report recommends that contracted parties will not need to perform any level of geographic differentiation due to the difficulty of determining the location of the registrant.’
I cannot find that argument (‘due to’) in the draft final report. However rec#5 requires registrars to a.o. collect address- incl country data from registrants. So on the one hand hand the data are collected and (should be) accurate, and on the other it is ‘difficult’ to ‘determine the location of the registrant’?
The contracted parties have said there is too much risk of incorrectly identifying whether GDPR is applicable to the registrant. We both have the same difficulty in reconciling these two facts. The other factor is that a registrar outside of the EU who has resellers "might" have a reseller in the EU (ie a "processor") without their knowledge be cause resellers can have resellers can have resellers... and the original registrar has no idea who they are. That should be fixed by requiring that they know!
- Rec#5 lists the ‘data elements to be collected where some data elements are automatically generated and, as indicated below, in some cases it is optional for the registered name holder to provide those data elements.
The ‘tech fields’ (name, phone and email) in the ‘data elements’ table are not ‘indicated’ as being ‘optional’. Like for instance the ‘organization’ and ‘fax’ fields of the ‘registrant’ (= ‘opt.’) . Then there is a note ‘For the purpose of the Technical contact, which is optional for the Registered Name Holder to complete (and if the Registrar provides this option)’. Etc. Why are the technical contact data elements not labeled in the table as being ‘(opt.)’?
I have pointed out that apparent discrepancy and presume it will be fixed. Alan
thanks again, with regards Bastiaan
*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***
On 15 Feb 2019, at 04:17, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thank you Alan
I think you have captured the outcomes of the CPWG discussions very well. I am happy with this statement and have no further comments
Holly
On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan
<ALAC-Statement-v01.docx><ALAC-Statement-v01.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...)
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
+1 On Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 13:59 Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com wrote:
My support as well.
Kaili
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: "Bastiaan Goslings" <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>; "Holly Raiche" < h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: "CPWG" <cpwg@icann.org>; "ALAC" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [CPWG] [ALAC] URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report
At 15/02/2019 02:45 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
Thanks - I cannot join this evening’s (CET) CPWG call and therefore want to express my support for the statement. If it comes to a vote during the call then please include my explicit endorsement.
Thanks! If other ALAC Members are in the same position, a message of support prior to the meeting will allow us to know if there is sufficient support.
Just a comment, and if not relevant then ignore, but I took the final report from 11 February that was sent to the GNSO council on the 12th as a reference to see what our concerns apply to. I am somewhat confused:
- Rec#16 states ‘that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.’
Our response says ‘The report recommends that contracted parties will not need to perform any level of geographic differentiation due to the difficulty of determining the location of the registrant.’
I cannot find that argument (‘due to’) in the draft final report. However rec#5 requires registrars to a.o. collect address- incl country data from registrants. So on the one hand hand the data are collected and (should be) accurate, and on the other it is ‘difficult’ to ‘determine the location of the registrant’?
The contracted parties have said there is too much risk of incorrectly identifying whether GDPR is applicable to the registrant. We both have the same difficulty in reconciling these two facts.
The other factor is that a registrar outside of the EU who has resellers "might" have a reseller in the EU (ie a "processor") without their knowledge be cause resellers can have resellers can have resellers... and the original registrar has no idea who they are. That should be fixed by requiring that they know!
- Rec#5 lists the ‘data elements to be collected where some data elements are automatically generated and, as indicated below, in some cases it is optional for the registered name holder to provide those data elements.
The ‘tech fields’ (name, phone and email) in the ‘data elements’ table are not ‘indicated’ as being ‘optional’. Like for instance the ‘organization’ and ‘fax’ fields of the ‘registrant’ (= ‘opt.’) . Then there is a note ‘For the purpose of the Technical contact, which is optional for the Registered Name Holder to complete (and if the Registrar provides this option)’. Etc. Why are the technical contact data elements not labeled in the table as being ‘(opt.)’?
I have pointed out that apparent discrepancy and presume it will be fixed.
Alan
thanks again, with regards Bastiaan
*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***
On 15 Feb 2019, at 04:17, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thank you Alan
I think you have captured the outcomes of the CPWG discussions very well. I am happy with this statement and have no further comments
Holly
On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan
<ALAC-Statement-v01.docx><ALAC-Statement-v01.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...)
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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...)
Hello Alan, Thanks for sharing this which is good. A few minor editorials and comment: 1. "“that it would be difficult to argue that *that* processing to prevent DNS...." 2 "...Phase 2 will *be* address the deferred issues as..." 3. I am not sure why we say "we do not accept" certain issues yet we seem to end our statement by accepting the report. Since/if we have red-lines then we should clearly not accept the report as a whole. However if we can live with the report as indicated in the last paragraph then I suggest we modify the following: "To be specific, the results which we cannot accept are:...." So it doesn't contradict the acceptance stated in the last paragraph. That said, I agree with Gorge, that the element of choice/consent is being taken away from registrants in terms of what they want to provide and publish. It's election period in my country, my apologies as I won't be present at upcoming cpwg call Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 01:28 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
*THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.*
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
I will make every effort to attend today's meeting, but in case I don't - I support the Draft ALAC Statement. Gordon Chillcott On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 00:28 +0000, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Thank you Gordon. Maureen On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:20 AM Gordon Chillcott <gordontc@gmail.com> wrote:
I will make every effort to attend today's meeting, but in case I don't - I support the Draft ALAC Statement.
Gordon Chillcott
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 00:28 +0000, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
WORD and PDF formats are attached.
Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Bartlett Morgan -
Bastiaan Goslings -
George Kirikos -
Gordon Chillcott -
Holly Raiche -
Kan Kaili -
Maureen Hilyard -
Seun Ojedeji