Hi all, I have received some offline feedback on the current statement, many feel its good and I received the following feedback The first paragraph seems fine to me but the next two paragraph seem to get into deliberation. I don’t personally disagree with the statements made but it seems to me that assumptions about future WG decisions on requirements should be avoided. For example: “An important aspect of safety on the Internet has been a reasonable assumption of privacy.” The third paragraph also seems to assume requirements that we have not yet agreed on. It may be that the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs could be worded more as problem statements instead of assumptions of fact. Can someone who has been holding the pen actively try and work this feedback into the current statement? -James
Hi James, Would the person who sent you this feedback like to provide some suggested text instead? I quite like the statement as it stands today on the Etherpad, but if someone would like to see paragraphs two and three worded differently, I would be happy to read and to consider a revised statement incorporating the answer they would like to see. Best wishes, Ayden On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 5:32 PM, James Gannon james@cyberinvasion.net wrote: Hi all, I have received some offline feedback on the current statement, many feel its good and I received the following feedback The first paragraph seems fine to me but the next two paragraph seem to get into deliberation. I don’t personally disagree with the statements made but it seems to me that assumptions about future WG decisions on requirements should be avoided. For example: “An important aspect of safety on the Internet has been a reasonable assumption of privacy.” The third paragraph also seems to assume requirements that we have not yet agreed on. It may be that the 2 nd & 3 rd paragraphs could be worded more as problem statements instead of assumptions of fact. Can someone who has been holding the pen actively try and work this feedback into the current statement? -James
I agree that the second paragraph in particular is quite deliberative, and I'm wondering whether we need that middle paragraph at all? The rest seems like it would still cover the challenge adequately enough. *Nick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc.* Senior Policy Advisor | Global Internet Governance Department for Culture, Media & Sport HM Government | United Kingdom Email: nick.shorey@culture.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)7741 256 320 Skype: nick.shorey Twitter: @nickshorey LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin On 23 July 2016 at 18:27, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Hi James,
Would the person who sent you this feedback like to provide some suggested text instead?
I quite like the statement as it stands today on the Etherpad, but if someone would like to see paragraphs two and three worded differently, I would be happy to read and to consider a revised statement incorporating the answer they would like to see.
Best wishes,
Ayden
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 5:32 PM, James Gannon james@cyberinvasion.net wrote:
Hi all, I have received some offline feedback on the current statement, many feel its good and I received the following feedback
The first paragraph seems fine to me but the next two paragraph seem to get into deliberation. I don’t personally disagree with the statements made but it seems to me that assumptions about future WG decisions on requirements should be avoided. For example: “An important aspect of safety on the Internet has been a reasonable assumption of privacy.” The third paragraph also seems to assume requirements that we have not yet agreed on.
It may be that the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs could be worded more as problem statements instead of assumptions of fact.
Can someone who has been holding the pen actively try and work this feedback into the current statement?
-James
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
Hi All, I took a shot at drafting a problem statement using the ether pad tool. If you look at the ether pad timeline you will see I decided to simplify/shorten what I originally wrote. I’ve copied the text I ended up with below for convenience. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts…. Alex Draft Problem Statement (a.k.a. What problem are we trying to solve.) WHOIS has been the source of almost two decades of study, discussion and debate within the ICANN community and beyond. The Next Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS) PDP Working Group has been tasked to define the policies associated a new and improved RDS that will meet the needs of the existing and ever evolving global Internet. The core problem that will need to be solved in defining this policy is addressing the tension among the varied and competing views of ICANN constituencies on key issues related to the right to privacy, anonymity, intellectual property protection, security and abuse, among others. [2] At a high level this means understanding the purpose of domain name registration data [3] in addition to ensuring a system to support domain name registration and maintenance which: * Provides appropriate access to accurate, reliable, and uniform registration data; * Protects the privacy of Registrant information; * Enables a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and maintaining the ability to contact Registrants; * Supports a framework to address issues involving Registrants, including but not limited to: consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime, and intellectual property protection; and * Provides an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement needs. [4] References [1] "...the current [WHOIS] system is broken and needs to be repaired." - WHOIS Policy Review Teams Final Report, May 2012 [2] "A gross understatement is that tensions exist between the various ICANN constituencies regarding WHOIS. Issues abound including right to privacy, anonymity, intellectual property protection, security and abuse, among others. Each is important. None more so than the other." - WHOIS Policy Review Teams Final Report, May 2012 [3] "The SSAC believes that the foundational problem facing all “WHOIS” discussions is understanding the purpose of domain name registration data." - SAC055 WHOIS: Blind Men And An Elephant [4] “...the EWG developed a high-level statement of purpose, using it to align this report’s recommendations with ICANN’s mission and design a system to support domain name registration and maintenance which: * Provides appropriate access to accurate, reliable, and uniform registration data; * Protects the privacy of Registrant information; * Enables a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and maintaining the ability to contact Registrants; * Supports a framework to address issues involving Registrants, including but not limited to: consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime, and intellectual property protection; and * Provides an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement needs." - Final Report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services, June 2014
Hi James, All, So how do we move forward with coming to agreement on our problem statement before next week (as requested on the last RDS call). Does it make sense to set up a call? Thanks! Alex On Jul 25, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> wrote: Hi All, I took a shot at drafting a problem statement using the ether pad tool. If you look at the ether pad timeline you will see I decided to simplify/shorten what I originally wrote. I’ve copied the text I ended up with below for convenience. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts…. Alex Draft Problem Statement (a.k.a. What problem are we trying to solve.) WHOIS has been the source of almost two decades of study, discussion and debate within the ICANN community and beyond. The Next Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS) PDP Working Group has been tasked to define the policies associated a new and improved RDS that will meet the needs of the existing and ever evolving global Internet. The core problem that will need to be solved in defining this policy is addressing the tension among the varied and competing views of ICANN constituencies on key issues related to the right to privacy, anonymity, intellectual property protection, security and abuse, among others. [2] At a high level this means understanding the purpose of domain name registration data [3] in addition to ensuring a system to support domain name registration and maintenance which: * Provides appropriate access to accurate, reliable, and uniform registration data; * Protects the privacy of Registrant information; * Enables a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and maintaining the ability to contact Registrants; * Supports a framework to address issues involving Registrants, including but not limited to: consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime, and intellectual property protection; and * Provides an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement needs. [4] References [1] "...the current [WHOIS] system is broken and needs to be repaired." - WHOIS Policy Review Teams Final Report, May 2012 [2] "A gross understatement is that tensions exist between the various ICANN constituencies regarding WHOIS. Issues abound including right to privacy, anonymity, intellectual property protection, security and abuse, among others. Each is important. None more so than the other." - WHOIS Policy Review Teams Final Report, May 2012 [3] "The SSAC believes that the foundational problem facing all “WHOIS” discussions is understanding the purpose of domain name registration data." - SAC055 WHOIS: Blind Men And An Elephant [4] “...the EWG developed a high-level statement of purpose, using it to align this report’s recommendations with ICANN’s mission and design a system to support domain name registration and maintenance which: * Provides appropriate access to accurate, reliable, and uniform registration data; * Protects the privacy of Registrant information; * Enables a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and maintaining the ability to contact Registrants; * Supports a framework to address issues involving Registrants, including but not limited to: consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime, and intellectual property protection; and * Provides an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement needs." - Final Report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services, June 2014
participants (5)
-
Ayden Férdeline -
Deacon, Alex -
James Gannon -
Lisa Phifer -
Nick Shorey