I read the paper per Interim arrangements. In my view the elements of interest were part of our own scoping discussions. And in terms of our several agreements pertaining, it seems to me we have covered the bases.

We made the right decisions. The rational choice for us is Option A; Proceed as planned.

-Carlton


On Tue, 15 May 2018, 9:42 pm Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:

I call your attention to a Public Comment (PC) launched yesterday

asking for input on alternatives to alter the RDS-WHOIS2-RT Scope and

plans (as well possible changes to the not yet started ATRT3) -

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-2018-05-14-en .

I proposes three possible scenarios for our RT:

a) Proceeds as planned;

b) reduce scope to just an analysis of the WHOIS1-RT Recommendations;

c) pause the review entirely for some as yet to be determined time.

If recommended by the community, b) and c) would require our

agreement. The implications of a community recommendation that we

refused to agree with are not known. If there is a pause, it is not

clear when the unpause would happen and to what extent it would be

the same team moving forward.

The PC ends on 06 July 2018 and the report on input received is due

on 23 July 2018, a few days before we are currently planning to meet

in Brussels to close-to-finalize our report.

Although the PC was issues yesterday, neither I nor Susan and Cathrin

had any prior knowledge of it and in fact we only heard of it today.

We have initiated discussions with MSSI on exactly what this means

and will get back when I have a better understanding.

Alan

_______________________________________________

RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list

RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt