- RDS-WHOIS2-RT - lists.icann.org

My apologize for possible absence for Plenary Call #7
by Dmitry Belyavsky Sept. 11, 2017

Sept. 11, 2017

Dear all, I am not sure whether I am able to participate in the Plenary Call #7 because I'm at the APTLD conference that day. I'll do my best to join at least in listen-only mode if agenda permits. Please apologize my possible absence. -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky

1 0

Reminder: Implementation Briefings
by Jean-Baptiste Deroulez Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

Please find below an email sent on behalf of the RDS-WHOIS2 leadership. Dear Team, This is to inform you that ICANN org will be providing you with a schedule of implementation briefings shortly. We would like to take this opportunity to kindly remind you that we have a go-to person for any implementation related briefing and questions: Negar Farzinnia. Negar manages all ICANN organization task forces that are compiling information for briefings and coordinates with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to ensure our questions are answered. As we start developing our draft recommendations, Negar will also be the member of the support team who will provide us with some guidance on how to build SMART recommendations (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound). Briefings will involve SMEs who are responsible for implementation of various recommendations across different departments (Global Domains Division (GDD), Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), compliance, etc.). It is important, as a result, that we be prepared. We invite you to read the process below which will help ICANN organization and SMEs shape briefings in the most relevant and helpful way for us: 1. Thoroughly read documentation and implementation reports available on our background materials page:https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Background+Materials.)[communi…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> 2. ICANN organization sends briefing materials in writing no later than 3-5 days prior to the presentation 3. Review Team reads materials and sends questions to the mailing-list prior to the presentation 4. SME delivers presentation and addresses questions 5. Review Team sends any follow-up questions/asks to mailing-list 6. Briefings coordinator advises on anticipated completion dates for follow-up questions/asks Our initial deadline for questions on the WHOIS implementation report was August 31st. Please send any questions you may to have to the list by the end of this week so SMEs may prepare their materials and answers accordingly. Thank you. Kind regards, Alan, Cathrin, Susan

1 0

Fact Sheet: Question addressed on plenary call #6
by Jean-Baptiste Deroulez Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Dear Review Team members, We would like to follow up on Alan’s question assigned to ICANN organization from the last plenary call #6<https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Meeting+%236+-+31+August> on the Fact Sheet and how percentages were assigned on milestones listed. Four milestones were identified by ICANN org in the Fact Sheet at the time the call for volunteers was published. - Review Planning: 20% - Research and Studies: 20% - Draft Report: 35% - Final Report: 25% We heard on the plenary call that there were concerns with the percentages allocation and would like to invite you to review these. As this version was already approved by the leadership, we will implement your approved changes in the September 2017 version scheduled for posting in November. We kindly remind you that the Fact Sheet captures attendance of review team members, costs associated with professional services and travel to attend face-to-face meetings, and milestones. The Fact Sheet will be updated and posted on a quarterly basis as follows: Quarter End Date of Financials Posting Date FY17 Q4 June 2017 10 August 2017 FY18 Q1 September 2017 10 November 2017 FY18 Q2 December 2017 10 February 2018 Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Pilot Program Launches
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

-- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. -------- Original Message -------- From: ICANN News Alert <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Sent: September 5, 2017 9:26:38 PM EDT To: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Pilot Program Launches [1]ICANN News Alert [2]https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-05-en ______________________________________________________________________ Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Pilot Program Launches 5 September 2017 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced a voluntary Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) pilot program, which will begin on 5 September 2017 and conclude on 31 July 2018. RDAP enables users to access current registration data and was created as a replacement for the WHOIS protocol. The goal of the pilot program is to develop a baseline profile (or profiles) to guide implementation, establish an implementation target date, and develop a plan for the implementation of an RDAP-based solution. Proceeding with a pilot program will provide an opportunity for Registration Data Services (RDS) operators to gain operational experience and for producers and consumers of RDS data to participate and provide valuable feedback. The voluntary RDAP pilot program was initiated at the [3]request [PDF, 93 KB] of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group, with the support of the Registrar Stakeholder Group. Interested parties can participate in the pilot as described in the [4]community wiki workspace. About RDAP Some of RDAP advantages over WHOIS protocol include: * Standardized query, response and error messages. * Secure access to data (i.e., over HTTPS). * Extensibility (e.g., makes it easy to add output elements). * A bootstrapping mechanism that makes it easy to find the authoritative server for a given query. * Redirection/reference mechanism (e.g., from a thin registry to a registrar). * Builds on top of the well-known web protocol HTTP. * Internationalization support for registration data. * Provides the option to enable differentiated access (e.g., limited access for anonymous users and full access for authenticated users). For more information, send an email to [5]globalsupport(a)icann.org with "RDAP Pilot Program" in the subject line. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. References 1. http://www.icann.org/ 2. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-05-en 3. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-01aug1… 4. https://community.icann.org/display/RP/RDAP+Pilot 5. mailto:globalsupport@icann.org This message was sent to alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca from no-reply(a)external.icann.org ICANN News Alert | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Manage Your Subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11810893&l=6333&s=8IU3&m=10…

1 0

Thursday's meeting
by Chris Disspain Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

All, I expect to be an apology for this meeting. If things change I shall, of course, join the call. Cheers, Chris

1 0

Formation of the RDS-WHOIS2 Board Caucus Group
by Chris Disspain Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

Greetings All, In line with best practice experience from the Transition-related work, the Board is using Caucus Groups as a mechanism for the Board to provide input to Specific Review Teams on the scope of work, feasibility of recommendations and other key matters. These Caucus Groups are small groups of Board members with expertise and interest in the particular Review-related topics. The goal is to create an interactive environment where the Board can engage with the Review Teams to offer input and observations for Review Teams’ consideration on a timely basis, via the Board Caucus Group. The Board Caucus Group for the RDS-WHOIS2 Review has been formed, and currently consists of Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Cherine Chalaby, Steve Crocker, Markus Kummer, Akinori Maemura, Kaveh Ranjbar and me. It is important to highlight that the formation of the Caucus Groups is the Board’s internal method of conducting their work. All of the final results are seen and reviewed by the full Board so any response or feedback provided to the Review Team by the Caucus Group is on behalf of the full Board. I hope this information is helpful and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Cheers, Chris

1 0

Apologize for being absent of Plenary Call #6
by SUN Lili Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

Dear all, I’m writing to apologize my absence for Plenary Call #6 on 31 August as it’s a travel day for me, than you for your understanding. Best regards, Lili SUN *************************************************************************************************** This message, and any attachment contained, are confidential and subject of legal privilege. It may be used solely for the designated police/justice purpose and by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The information is not to be disseminated to another agency or third party without the author’s consent, and must not be retained longer than is necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the information is to be used. All practicable steps shall be taken by the recipients to ensure that information is protected against unauthorised access or processing. INTERPOL reserves the right to enquire about the use of the information provided. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error. In such a case, you should not print it, copy it, make any use of it or disclose it, but please notify us immediately and delete the message from any computer. *************************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Replacement and Removal of Members
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

I will leave the discussion of removal until the meeting, since this seems to be an issue of general dispute in a variety of ways. On reappointing, under the previous rules in the AoC, it was the CEO and Chair of the GAC who made the original selections (from among those endorsed by the AC/SOs and applicants as experts. The AoC was silent on replacements But if a replacement was needed, it was done by the AC/SO that originally had endorsed the person that is leaving. Under the new Bylaws, it is the Chairs of the AC?SO that make the selections and I am proposing that we do not change the method of replacement. There is no precedent from the SSR, the only other review being conducted after the Bylaws, since the ToR is MUCH expanded from the version that they used. As such, it is up to us to make a recommendation and the Board can accept or reject it. I support a minimalist approach. Alan At 28/08/2017 12:44 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >I made a few emendations. See them inline. > >One is the matter of appointment, isn't it the >Board that appoints the RT member? If my >understanding is correct, then some changes I >propose shall apply. If not, then strike them. > >-Carlton > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: <tel:(876)%20818-1799>876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > >On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I was asked to propose wording for the section >of the Terms of Reference on Replacement and Removal of Members > >I would like to propose the following wording for the consideration of the RT. > >Alan > >======= > >If a Review Team member is no longer able or >willing to serve, or if an SO/AC withdraws its >endorsement of the member, the SO/AC making the >original endorsement will be requested to >âmake a new endorsement for >the position >.â >. The SO/AC will make the selection according to their own >ârules and â >processes and >âshall > not be bound to consider only those candidates who originally applied >âand â >request >âed > their endorsement. > >If a Review Team member is >âdeemed by the evidence >â >sufficiently inactive or disruptive as to cause at least >â2/3rd > of Review Team members (excluding the member > in question) to request their removal, the member will be asked to >âwithdraw >. If the member fails to >âwithdraw >, the SO/AC that endorsed the member will be >requested to withdraw their endorsement >â and request the member resign. > Should the SO/AC not take action, the member can be >âexcluded from the Review Team > by a 2/3 >ârdâ >majority vote of the remaining Review Team >members. In all cases, the balloting will be >carried out in such a way as to not reveal how individual members voted. > > >_______________________________________________ >RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list ><mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org>RDS-WHOIS2-RT(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt > > > >Virus-free. ><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…>www.avast.com >

1 0

Replacement and Removal of Members
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

I was asked to propose wording for the section of the Terms of Reference on Replacement and Removal of Members I would like to propose the following wording for the consideration of the RT. Alan ======= If a Review Team member is no longer able or willing to serve, or if an SO/AC withdraws its endorsement of the member, the SO/AC making the original endorsement will be requested to refill the position with a replacement member. The SO/AC will make the selection according to their own processes and will not be bound to consider only those candidates who originally applied requesting their endorsement. If a Review Team member is sufficiently inactive or disruptive as to cause at least 50% of Review Team members (excluding the member in question) to request their removal, the member will be asked to resign. If the member fails to resign, the SO/AC that endorsed the member will be requested to withdraw their endorsement and replace the member. Should the SO/AC not take action, the member can be removed by a 2/3 majority vote of the remaining Review Team members. In all cases, the balloting will be carried out in such a way as to not reveal how individual members voted.

6 7

Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Replacement and Removal of Members
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

Hi Erika, To be clear, are you suggesting that we have a higher threshold (70%) to ask an AC/SO to remove their member that we need to do the removal ourselves (presuming we keep the latter power)?? No problem with New vs Replacement. Alan At 27/08/2017 07:36 AM, Erika Mann wrote: >Thank you Alan! > >Two recommendations (see in yellow below) , but I'm supporting the >current text as well if most members are okay with your text. > >Kind regards, >Erika > > >If a Review Team member is no longer able or willing to serve, or if >an SO/AC withdraws its endorsement of the member, the SO/AC making >the original endorsement will be requested to refill the position >with a new (delete = replacement) member. The SO/AC will make the >selection according to their own processes and will not be bound to >consider only those candidates who originally applied requesting >their endorsement. > >If a Review Team member is sufficiently inactive or disruptive as to >cause (delete = at leas) (50%) 70% of Review Team members (excluding >the member in question) to request their removal, the member will be >asked to resign. If the member fails to resign, the SO/AC that >endorsed the member will be requested to withdraw their endorsement >and replace the member. Should the SO/AC not take action, the member >can be removed by a 2/3 majority vote of the remaining Review Team >members. In all cases, the balloting will be carried out in such a >way as to not reveal how individual members voted. > >On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I was asked to propose wording for the section of the Terms of >Reference on Replacement and Removal of Members >I would like to propose the following wording for the consideration of the RT. >Alan >======= >If a Review Team member is no longer able or willing to serve, or if >an SO/AC withdraws its endorsement of the member, the SO/AC making >the original endorsement will be requested to refill the position >with a replacement member. The SO/AC will make the selection >according to their own processes and will not be bound to consider >only those candidates who originally applied requesting their endorsement. >If a Review Team member is sufficiently inactive or disruptive as to >cause at least 50% of Review Team members (excluding the member in >question) to request their removal, the member will be asked to >resign. If the member fails to resign, the SO/AC that endorsed the >member will be requested to withdraw their endorsement and replace >the member. Should the SO/AC not take action, the member can be >removed by a 2/3 majority vote of the remaining Review Team members. >In all cases, the balloting will be carried out in such a way as to >not reveal how individual members voted. >_______________________________________________ >RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list ><mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org>RDS-WHOIS2-RT(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt

1 0