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
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