Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration...
Hi Alex, Unfortunately due to come circumstances I have actually just left the PDP working group last night so won’t be in a position to keep any movement on this, I hope that everyone involved can keep working on this and I hope to rejoin potentially in Phase 2! Apologies for having to drop it mid work stream! -James From: <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> Date: Wednesday 27 July 2016 at 09:43 To: "gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration... 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
Hi James, I’m sorry to hear you will be leaving the WG. Problem-Statement team, I think in order to move things forward we should take Lisa up on her offer to set up a doodle pool and try and set up a call late this week or on Monday of next week. Thoughts? Also, I’ve not heard any feedback on my proposed purpose statement - should I assume everyone thinks its perfect and we are done? :) FWIW it does cover the concerns raised in the original version (privacy) on the Etherpad, but also touches upon other important issues that we must come to agreement on. Thanks Alex On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:34 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Alex, Unfortunately due to come circumstances I have actually just left the PDP working group last night so won’t be in a position to keep any movement on this, I hope that everyone involved can keep working on this and I hope to rejoin potentially in Phase 2! Apologies for having to drop it mid work stream! -James From: <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> Date: Wednesday 27 July 2016 at 09:43 To: "gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration... 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
Hi Alex, I like the idea of a call - and I'm available next Monday. Thanks for drafting your proposed problem statement. I'll take a look and let you have my thoughts asap. But I'm sure it's perfect as is. :-) Marina Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> wrote: Hi James, I'm sorry to hear you will be leaving the WG. Problem-Statement team, I think in order to move things forward we should take Lisa up on her offer to set up a doodle pool and try and set up a call late this week or on Monday of next week. Thoughts? Also, I've not heard any feedback on my proposed purpose statement - should I assume everyone thinks its perfect and we are done? :) FWIW it does cover the concerns raised in the original version (privacy) on the Etherpad, but also touches upon other important issues that we must come to agreement on. Thanks Alex On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:34 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Alex, Unfortunately due to come circumstances I have actually just left the PDP working group last night so won't be in a position to keep any movement on this, I hope that everyone involved can keep working on this and I hope to rejoin potentially in Phase 2! Apologies for having to drop it mid work stream! -James From: <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> Date: Wednesday 27 July 2016 at 09:43 To: "gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration... 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
Is this not the EWG statement? I thought we were aiming for something based on a more technical stance, ie the draft that was on the table? How can we pull these two different visions together? Stephanie Perrin On 2016-07-27 19:20, Marina Lewis wrote:
Hi Alex,
I like the idea of a call - and I'm available next Monday.
Thanks for drafting your proposed problem statement. I'll take a look and let you have my thoughts asap. But I'm sure it's perfect as is. :-)
Marina
Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com <mailto:marina@dns-law.com>
On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org <mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> wrote:
Hi James,
I’m sorry to hear you will be leaving the WG.
Problem-Statement team,
I think in order to move things forward we should take Lisa up on her offer to set up a doodle pool and try and set up a call late this week or on Monday of next week.
Thoughts?
Also, I’ve not heard any feedback on my proposed purpose statement - should I assume everyone thinks its perfect and we are done? :)
FWIW it does cover the concerns raised in the original version (privacy) on the Etherpad, but also touches upon other important issues that we must come to agreement on.
Thanks Alex
On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:34 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
Hi Alex, Unfortunately due to come circumstances I have actually just left the PDP working group last night so won’t be in a position to keep any movement on this, I hope that everyone involved can keep working on this and I hope to rejoin potentially in Phase 2! Apologies for having to drop it mid work stream!
-James
From: <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org <mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> Date: Wednesday 27 July 2016 at 09:43 To: "gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration...
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/*
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
Hi Stephanie, You will see i did reference text from the EWG final report and yes we can pull these two versions together. In my opinion my statement is a superset of the original version that focused mostly on privacy. Note I agree 100% that privacy is super important, but other concerns must be included and in scope of the problem we need to solve. However I’m also certain the RDS WG has not been tasked with developing a technical solution - so I’m not sure why the problem statement would have a “technical stance”. (I may have missed that discussion) ICANNs focus is policy, and the “problem” we have been tasked to address is to develop a policy that “addresses the tension between the varied and competing views of ICANN constituencies.” Alex On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Is this not the EWG statement? I thought we were aiming for something based on a more technical stance, ie the draft that was on the table? How can we pull these two different visions together? Stephanie Perrin On 2016-07-27 19:20, Marina Lewis wrote: Hi Alex, I like the idea of a call - and I'm available next Monday. Thanks for drafting your proposed problem statement. I'll take a look and let you have my thoughts asap. But I'm sure it's perfect as is. :-) Marina Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> wrote: Hi James, I’m sorry to hear you will be leaving the WG. Problem-Statement team, I think in order to move things forward we should take Lisa up on her offer to set up a doodle pool and try and set up a call late this week or on Monday of next week. Thoughts? Also, I’ve not heard any feedback on my proposed purpose statement - should I assume everyone thinks its perfect and we are done? :) FWIW it does cover the concerns raised in the original version (privacy) on the Etherpad, but also touches upon other important issues that we must come to agreement on. Thanks Alex On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:34 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Alex, Unfortunately due to come circumstances I have actually just left the PDP working group last night so won’t be in a position to keep any movement on this, I hope that everyone involved can keep working on this and I hope to rejoin potentially in Phase 2! Apologies for having to drop it mid work stream! -James From: <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> Date: Wednesday 27 July 2016 at 09:43 To: "gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration... 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
No I agree Alex, and I noted you referenced the relevant chunk of the EWG report (for which thanks, saved me looking it up :-)) But I thought the original impulse of this group was to develop an overriding purpose clause/statement that summarized the business requirement which we are seeking to build (in a logical and policy sense, not necessarily from a technical sense if you mean specing the system) Obviously, it is proving harder than we thought it might in Helsinki.... cheers SP PS I will add comments to the google doc On 2016-07-27 19:41, Deacon, Alex wrote:
Hi Stephanie,
You will see i did reference text from the EWG final report and yes we can pull these two versions together. In my opinion my statement is a superset of the original version that focused mostly on privacy. Note I agree 100% that privacy is super important, but other concerns must be included and in scope of the problem we need to solve.
However I’m also certain the RDS WG has not been tasked with developing a technical solution - so I’m not sure why the problem statement would have a “technical stance”. (I may have missed that discussion) ICANNs focus is policy, and the “problem” we have been tasked to address is to develop a policy that “addresses the tension between the varied and competing views of ICANN constituencies.”
Alex
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
Is this not the EWG statement? I thought we were aiming for something based on a more technical stance, ie the draft that was on the table? How can we pull these two different visions together?
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-07-27 19:20, Marina Lewis wrote:
Hi Alex,
I like the idea of a call - and I'm available next Monday.
Thanks for drafting your proposed problem statement. I'll take a look and let you have my thoughts asap. But I'm sure it's perfect as is. :-)
Marina
Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com <mailto:marina@dns-law.com>
On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org <mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> wrote:
Hi James,
I’m sorry to hear you will be leaving the WG.
Problem-Statement team,
I think in order to move things forward we should take Lisa up on her offer to set up a doodle pool and try and set up a call late this week or on Monday of next week.
Thoughts?
Also, I’ve not heard any feedback on my proposed purpose statement - should I assume everyone thinks its perfect and we are done? :)
FWIW it does cover the concerns raised in the original version (privacy) on the Etherpad, but also touches upon other important issues that we must come to agreement on.
Thanks Alex
On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:34 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
Hi Alex, Unfortunately due to come circumstances I have actually just left the PDP working group last night so won’t be in a position to keep any movement on this, I hope that everyone involved can keep working on this and I hope to rejoin potentially in Phase 2! Apologies for having to drop it mid work stream!
-James
From: <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org <mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> Date: Wednesday 27 July 2016 at 09:43 To: "gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration...
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/*
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
Got it. Yes that makes sense, but may be easier said than done :) Alex On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: No I agree Alex, and I noted you referenced the relevant chunk of the EWG report (for which thanks, saved me looking it up :-)) But I thought the original impulse of this group was to develop an overriding purpose clause/statement that summarized the business requirement which we are seeking to build (in a logical and policy sense, not necessarily from a technical sense if you mean specing the system) Obviously, it is proving harder than we thought it might in Helsinki.... cheers SP PS I will add comments to the google doc On 2016-07-27 19:41, Deacon, Alex wrote: Hi Stephanie, You will see i did reference text from the EWG final report and yes we can pull these two versions together. In my opinion my statement is a superset of the original version that focused mostly on privacy. Note I agree 100% that privacy is super important, but other concerns must be included and in scope of the problem we need to solve. However I’m also certain the RDS WG has not been tasked with developing a technical solution - so I’m not sure why the problem statement would have a “technical stance”. (I may have missed that discussion) ICANNs focus is policy, and the “problem” we have been tasked to address is to develop a policy that “addresses the tension between the varied and competing views of ICANN constituencies.” Alex On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Is this not the EWG statement? I thought we were aiming for something based on a more technical stance, ie the draft that was on the table? How can we pull these two different visions together? Stephanie Perrin On 2016-07-27 19:20, Marina Lewis wrote: Hi Alex, I like the idea of a call - and I'm available next Monday. Thanks for drafting your proposed problem statement. I'll take a look and let you have my thoughts asap. But I'm sure it's perfect as is. :-) Marina Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> wrote: Hi James, I’m sorry to hear you will be leaving the WG. Problem-Statement team, I think in order to move things forward we should take Lisa up on her offer to set up a doodle pool and try and set up a call late this week or on Monday of next week. Thoughts? Also, I’ve not heard any feedback on my proposed purpose statement - should I assume everyone thinks its perfect and we are done? :) FWIW it does cover the concerns raised in the original version (privacy) on the Etherpad, but also touches upon other important issues that we must come to agreement on. Thanks Alex On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:34 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Alex, Unfortunately due to come circumstances I have actually just left the PDP working group last night so won’t be in a position to keep any movement on this, I hope that everyone involved can keep working on this and I hope to rejoin potentially in Phase 2! Apologies for having to drop it mid work stream! -James From: <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org>> Date: Wednesday 27 July 2016 at 09:43 To: "gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration... 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
Lisa, Thanks for trying to keep us on-topic. I am not especially happy that there does not appear to be any way to actually change the scope of the broader RDS working group, or even change the way the work is proceeding. But that discussion is (mostly) out-of-scope for this team. OTOH... would it make sense for this team to produce some opinion papers if people were interested? You know, just informally... :) Cheers, -- Shane At 2016-07-27 18:35:59 -0600 Lisa Phifer <lisa@corecom.com> wrote:
Dear all -
It sounds like there may be a bit of confusion.
This drafting team was formed to develop a concise tight problem statement, drawing from the Issue Report and Charter, describing the problem to be addressed by this WG.
While the need to define the purpose of the RDS itself was also discussed in Helsinki, that falls to the entire WG to develop together during deliberation.
Best, Lisa
At 06:06 PM 7/27/2016, Deacon, Alex wrote:
Got it. Yes that makes sense, but may be easier said than done :)
Alex
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
No I agree Alex, and I noted you referenced the relevant chunk of the EWG report (for which thanks, saved me looking it up :-)) But I thought the original impulse of this group was to develop an overriding purpose clause/statement that summarized the business requirement which we are seeking to build (in a logical and policy sense, not necessarily from a technical sense if you mean specing the system)
Obviously, it is proving harder than we thought it might in Helsinki....
cheers SP
PS I will add comments to the google doc
On 2016-07-27 19:41, Deacon, Alex wrote: Hi Stephanie,
You will see i did reference text from the EWG final report and yes we can pull these two versions together. In my opinion my statement is a superset of the original version that focused mostly on privacy. Note I agree 100% that privacy is super important, but other concerns must be included and in scope of the problem we need to solve.
However I’m also certain the RDS WG has not been tasked with developing a technical solution - so I’m not sure why the problem statement would have a “technical stanceâ€_. (I may have missed that discussion) ICANNs focus is policy, and the “problemâ€_ we have been tasked to address is to develop a policy that “addresses the tension between the varied and competing views of ICANN constituencies.â€_
Alex
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Is this not the EWG statement? I thought we were aiming for something based on a more technical stance, ie the draft that was on the table? How can we pull these two different visions together?
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-07-27 19:20, Marina Lewis wrote: Hi Alex,
I like the idea of a call - and I'm available next Monday.
Thanks for drafting your proposed problem statement. I'll take a look and let you have my thoughts asap. But I'm sure it's perfect as is. :-)
Marina
Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com
On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org> wrote:
Hi James,
I’m sorry to hear you will be leaving the WG.
Problem-Statement team,
I think in order to move things forward we should take Lisa up on her offer to set up a doodle pool and try and set up a call late this week or on Monday of next week.
Thoughts?
Also, I’ve not heard any feedback on my proposed purpose statement - should I assume everyone thinks its perfect and we are done? :)
FWIW it does cover the concerns raised in the original version (privacy) on the Etherpad, but also touches upon other important issues that we must come to agreement on.
Thanks Alex
On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:34 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net > wrote:
Hi Alex, Unfortunately due to come circumstances I have actually just left the PDP working group last night so won’t be in a position to keep any movement on this, I hope that everyone involved can keep working on this and I hope to rejoin potentially in Phase 2! Apologies for having to drop it mid work stream!
-James
From: < gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org> Date: Wednesday 27 July 2016 at 09:43 To: " gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org" < gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration...
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> 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." &nbs2012
[3] "The SSAC believes that the foundational problem facing all “WHOISâ€_ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list
Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
Let us keep in mind that the Charter has to be interpreted. I think interpretations may differ. Stephanie On 2016-07-28 8:22, Shane Kerr wrote:
Lisa,
Thanks for trying to keep us on-topic.
I am not especially happy that there does not appear to be any way to actually change the scope of the broader RDS working group, or even change the way the work is proceeding. But that discussion is (mostly) out-of-scope for this team.
OTOH... would it make sense for this team to produce some opinion papers if people were interested? You know, just informally... :)
Cheers,
-- Shane
At 2016-07-27 18:35:59 -0600 Lisa Phifer <lisa@corecom.com> wrote:
Dear all -
It sounds like there may be a bit of confusion.
This drafting team was formed to develop a concise tight problem statement, drawing from the Issue Report and Charter, describing the problem to be addressed by this WG.
While the need to define the purpose of the RDS itself was also discussed in Helsinki, that falls to the entire WG to develop together during deliberation.
Best, Lisa
At 06:06 PM 7/27/2016, Deacon, Alex wrote:
Got it. Yes that makes sense, but may be easier said than done :)
Alex
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
No I agree Alex, and I noted you referenced the relevant chunk of the EWG report (for which thanks, saved me looking it up :-)) But I thought the original impulse of this group was to develop an overriding purpose clause/statement that summarized the business requirement which we are seeking to build (in a logical and policy sense, not necessarily from a technical sense if you mean specing the system)
Obviously, it is proving harder than we thought it might in Helsinki....
cheers SP
PS I will add comments to the google doc
On 2016-07-27 19:41, Deacon, Alex wrote: Hi Stephanie,
You will see i did reference text from the EWG final report and yes we can pull these two versions together. In my opinion my statement is a superset of the original version that focused mostly on privacy. Note I agree 100% that privacy is super important, but other concerns must be included and in scope of the problem we need to solve.
However I’m also certain the RDS WG has not been tasked with developing a technical solution - so I’m not sure why the problem statement would have a “technical stanceâ€_. (I may have missed that discussion) ICANNs focus is policy, and the “problemâ€_ we have been tasked to address is to develop a policy that “addresses the tension between the varied and competing views of ICANN constituencies.â€_
Alex
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Is this not the EWG statement? I thought we were aiming for something based on a more technical stance, ie the draft that was on the table? How can we pull these two different visions together?
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-07-27 19:20, Marina Lewis wrote: Hi Alex,
I like the idea of a call - and I'm available next Monday.
Thanks for drafting your proposed problem statement. I'll take a look and let you have my thoughts asap. But I'm sure it's perfect as is. :-)
Marina
Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com
On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org> wrote:
Hi James,
I’m sorry to hear you will be leaving the WG.
Problem-Statement team,
I think in order to move things forward we should take Lisa up on her offer to set up a doodle pool and try and set up a call late this week or on Monday of next week.
Thoughts?
Also, I’ve not heard any feedback on my proposed purpose statement - should I assume everyone thinks its perfect and we are done? :)
FWIW it does cover the concerns raised in the original version (privacy) on the Etherpad, but also touches upon other important issues that we must come to agreement on.
Thanks Alex
On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:34 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net > wrote:
Hi Alex, Unfortunately due to come circumstances I have actually just left the PDP working group last night so won’t be in a position to keep any movement on this, I hope that everyone involved can keep working on this and I hope to rejoin potentially in Phase 2! Apologies for having to drop it mid work stream!
-James
From: < gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org> Date: Wednesday 27 July 2016 at 09:43 To: " gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org" < gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Problem Statement for consideration...
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> 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." &nbs2012
[3] "The SSAC believes that the foundational problem facing all “WHOISâ€_ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list
Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt
participants (6)
-
Deacon, Alex -
James Gannon -
Lisa Phifer -
Marina Lewis -
Shane Kerr -
Stephanie Perrin