Hi Chuck and All, I hope in the future we might be able to use Google Docs, as they are easy to send links around, and quick to monitor. I appreciate the reminder about this document, and note that my concerns, as shared /below /(in brief) and /in the doc /(in detail), run deep on this one and think changes are needed. Best, Kathy (response in blue below and "track changes" in doc) On 3/6/2018 3:25 PM, Beth Bacon wrote:
Hi Chuck,
My responses are in line below and the attached version has the one small edit discussed below.
Thank you!
Beth
*From:* Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Chuck *Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2018 2:59 PM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose *Importance:* High
I want to remind all DT5 members that we broke our assignment into two deliverables: Regulatory Purpose and ICANN Compliance Purpose. There as been quite a lot of discussion about the Compliance one but not much recently about the Regulatory one. The latest redline version is attached with comments from Steve, Beth and me. Please look at the edits and comments and answer the following questions to help us finalize this today if possible:
_Question 1_
* Do you support the edits made by Steve? If not, please explain why and provide alternative wording if applicable.
Yes. Thank you, Steve.
* Note: I am considering leaving my comment in our final deliverable? Does anyone think we should not leave it or have another suggestion?
Yes. I think it should stay in the final deliverable.
- No, I think this question needs to be completely deleted as ICANN is not a regulatory agency, and therefore, cannot collect and process RDS registrant data for regulatory purposes. If ICANN wants to provide a regulatory authority with information about registries and registrars operating within their jurisdictions, that's a different question, and not an RDS one. _Question 2: Objective _The first bullet point does not outline an objective consistent with ICANN's mission for the collection and processing under ICANN rules of registrant data. Accordingly, I've deleted registrant from the list. The second bullet point sets out objections so vague and undefined as to be outside the "purpose" of anything within ICANN's mission, and accordingly, recommend for deletion.
_Question 3_
* If I understand correctly, Beth thinks we should delete the bullet and sub-bullets about registrants. Beth - please let me know if I misunderstand your comment and let us know what we should replace it with. The other alternative would be to delete registrant from the answer to Q1.
I think we could leave in the registrant bullet and sub-bullets as Steve’s edit shows that the registrant “could” take action. In addition, I added a quick (what I think is a corresponding) edit to Q1.
- Chuck, I agree with you here: that the bullet and all sub-bullets about registrants should be deleted. We have been told in many memos that purpose has to be ICANN's -- and we are not a regulatory or law enforcement agency.
* Is anyone any favor of deleting registrant from the answer to Q1? I think the edit makes it ok to stay at the moment. Yes, definitely (Kathy) * Beth also inserted a comment regarding the last 4 sub-bullets under registries. Would it suffice to just add her comment in our final deliverable and leave the sub-bullets as is? That would be fine with me. I bend to the will of the group on this though.
I hope all of you will respond today because we are quickly running out of time.
Chuck
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-5 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-5