[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: FW: R: Implementing Requirements WHOIS per RAA 2013 From: apisan@unam.mx Colleagues, reenvo one estdando discussion is on the list of at-large about the "new whois" to stress the importance of continuing the discussion started and guide our representatives about ALAC. Notice that there are issues on which this community has intervened before, like transjurisdiccionalidad. Aado that Roberto Gaetano opinions are usually well documented and designed, and ESTN fed by many years of experience from before the foundation of ICANN, and different views on the At Large splendid and years of service on the Board. Alejandro Pisanty --------------------------- Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Faculty of Chemistry UNAM 3000 University Avenue, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD SMS +525541444475 +525541444475 FROM MEXICO Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Join the LinkedIn group UNAM, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Holly Raiche [h.raiche @ internode.on.net] Posted on: Sunday, August 4, 2013 19:36 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] R: Implementing Requirements WHOIS per RAA 2013 Thank you Karl and Robert for your comments Roberto, the location of the ARDS is absolutely front and center as an issue. Some of the immediate comments I heard was to insist the database NOT be located in the U.S. (followed by a long list of other undesirable locations).I would suppose places like Geneva or Brussels (or Finland) Easily would be more accepted. But I think the better solution is to describe the venue in terms of strict and enforceable (and enforced) privacy laws. - September at The Least benchmark criteria. That Other issues were discussed This on the day included enforcement - by Whom (ICANN's compliance department has not covered itself with glory on this one), and defining who Can Have access to what data. Holly On 05/08/2013, at 10:13 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I can provide one point for thoughts, that ALAC might think to include in the feedback. During the presentation, and in the text of the report, there is a description of how to design access to data in a way that it will be dependent on the rights the accessing entity has. However, there is one entity that might gain full access to all data, and this is the government of the country where the database will be physically located. I had a chat with Michele on this, and he assured me that this is one point that came already out, and will be discussed to find an acceptable solution. I have no clue about the dynamics of the WG, I am sure, knowing Carlton, that our points have been expressed loudly, but maybe a little help from an official ALAC statement can help. Let's put it this way: other constituencies and stakeholder groups will not be shy in making statements that will push further their opinion and needs, beyond what was the acceptable consensus of the WG: why should ALAC avoid providing feedback? Michele is absolutely right when he calls for further input, he knows some will speak up anyway, it is fair if all do. Elaborating on the localization of the database, that we know is an issue, is there something we can suggest? We do not need to provide the technical solution, but can we spell out the requirements for making sure that no specific entity will be more equal than others? Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Holly Raiche Inviato: domenica 4 agosto 2013 23:08 A: At-Large Worldwide Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013
Hi Carlton
Thanks for this.
My one concern about ALAC not developing its own input is that, at the GNSO meeting Evan and I attended (and where Michele presented), he specifically asked, indeed pleaded for feedback from everyone.
I am sure that you will be taking the views that we have discussed to the EWG. But I think my question is whether it would not make sense to have official ALAC input on this particular proposal. It is different enough so that ALAC statements in the past are not applicable to this proposal. And, as the discussion between Garth, you, Evan, Rinalia and I showed in Durban, there are different views on the proposal within ALAC.
For example, should we give the many reforms to the RAA a chance to work first? Should compliance be left to the compliance area within ICANN or to this new proposed ARDS? And what happens to the RAA requirements on verification if the ARDS takes over that function, as well as being the gatekeeper for access to data. It is a new road with much to commend it but, as our discussions showed, some real reservations, and some real differences even within ALAC.
I trust you to reflect those differences, but worry that you don't have official ALAC statements to support what you are saying.
Just please keep us informed of ongoing discussions.
Thanks
Holly
On 05/08/2013, at 6:23 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Hi Holly: I should think not; this was an advisory and in any event, we have spoken often and endorsed the collection of the entire dataset as defined in the specs.
Regarding the EWG work, there was talk of placing an official ALAC response to invitation for comments. Since I'm a member of the EWG, speaking aloud to myself might very well be considered just desserts in some quarters and as such not to be encouraged. So I will exempt myself from that process.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>wrote:
Hi Carlton
It doesn't look like they are looking for any input from anyone - except registrars. Am I right?
And a related question - is ALAC making a statement of the EWG Initial Report. I don't see anything on the policy page, but my understanding was that they were looking for feedback?
Holly On 02/08/2013, at 2:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
See the details here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement- 31jul13-en.h tm
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/b6a764a6da.html --]]