I want to call attention to the following three paragraphs from the communique regarding Privacy & Proxy Services: "III. If the Board resolves to adopt the PPSAI recommendations, it should direct the Implementation Review Team (IRT) to ensure that the GAC concerns are effectively addressed in the implementation phase to the greatest extent possible. IV. GAC input and feedback should be sought out as necessary in developing a proposed implementation plan, including through participation of the Public Safety Working Group on the Implementation Review Team. V. If, in the course of the implementation discussions, policy issues emerge, they should be referred back to the GNSO for future deliberations in consultation with the GAC on potential enhancements to privacy and proxy service accreditation." To me it is a good sign that the GAC recognizes that the Board may adopt the PPSAI recommendations as is and, to the extent that the GAC recommendations can be dealt with during implementation, that is okay. Note that they say "to the greatest extent possible". Paragraph V then goes on to say exactly what should happen according to the Policy & Implementation recommendations that the Board approved. In my opinion, the GAC's statements in this part of the communique demonstrate that they are understanding and accepting their role and the role of the GNSO. That is a good sign. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 8:33 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Apologies, and some reflections on requirements
See the GAC Communique from Helsinki for their input on the Privacy & Proxy Services PDP recommendations.
When reading a GAC Communique, is it only me that automagically undoes their search-and-replace between "advises" and "demands" whilst desperately trying to filter out the subliminal message "you will obey" that's carefully hidden between each line ? I have no doubt that there will come a policy relating to P&P Services, but it can and will only ever be applicable to those directly provided by Registrars and Registries, and likely prove counter-productive in the long-run. There will never be an absolute connection between the Registrant and the beneficiary/operator/user of a domain, just like there is no absolute connection between who is currently inside a building and who is listed as owning the land it sits on.
I sort of alluded to this in my original remarks. This is also part of the reason why I think the entire "accurate whois data" shuffle is such an absurd waste of time.
Partly because every group-with-an-agenda has a very different definition of what they think the word "accurate" means :) Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR * domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups * _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg