Dear Review Team Members, Your informal meeting This is to inform you that we have identified a late afternoon time slot in the ICANN 59 schedule for your informal session: Date: Tuesday, 27 June Time: 17:00-18:30 SAST Meeting room: Pavilion S8 (venue map available at - https://schedule.icann.org/info) Please save the date! MSSI-Secretariat will be sending a calendar invite shortly. As indicated on your call #1, no decision will be reached at this meeting. No remote participation will be available for this session. Takeaways and notes from the informal discussions will be sent to the mailing-list. Dinner The Review Team dinner will be held on Sunday, 25 June at 19:30 SAST. You should have received a calendar invite which includes details. If not, please contact us at rds-whois2-staff@icann.org<mailto:rds-whois2-staff@icann.org>. Please RSVP so we may provide the restaurant with an accurate “headcount”. Sessions of Interest We have compiled sessions of interest we would encourage you to attend (all times listed below are SAST): Monday, 26 June GNSO - Outreach – GNSO Policy Briefing 08:00-08:30 https://icann59johannesburg2017.sched.com/event/B3pe GNSO Working Session - RDS PDP WG update 11:15-11:45 https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49O/gnso-working-session Cross Community Discussion on Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) Policy Requirements 15:15-18:30 https://schedule.icann.org/event/B3oo/cross-community-discussion-on-next-gen... Tuesday, 27 June GDPR: the most important change in data privacy regulation in over 20 years 15:15-16:45 https://schedule.icann.org/event/B3ot/gdpr-and-its-potential-impact-looking-... Wednesday, 28 June GNSO - Outreach – GNSO Policy Briefing 08:00-08:30 https://icann59johannesburg2017.sched.com/event/B3ph GNSO new gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to replace WHOIS PDP WG F2F Meeting 08:30-12:00 https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49L/gnso-new-gtld-registration-directory-s... GAC Session on New gTLD policies 08:30-09:30 https://icann59johannesburg2017.sched.com/event/B3ow Thursday, 29 June At-Large AFRALO ALS Capacity Building Session 4 08:00-09:00 https://schedule.icann.org/event/B3oh/at-large-afralo-als-capacity-building-... Useful information on ICANN59 can be found at: https://meetings.icann.org/en/johannesburg59#transportation As always, please feel free to contact us should you have any questions. Safe travels! Kind regards Alice
Hello Alice, On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
Cross Community Discussion on Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) Policy Requirements
15:15-18:30
https://schedule.icann.org/event/B3oo/cross-community- discussion-on-next-generation-gtld-registration-directory- services-rds-policy-requirements
Where can the slides from this section be downloaded? Thank you! -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
Hi Dmitry, The meeting materials from this session can be found on the page - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Cross-Community+Disc... Thanks, Best regards Alice From: Dmitry Belyavsky <beldmit@gmail.com> Date: Monday 26 June 2017 at 16:50 To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> Cc: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Preparing for ICANN 59 Hello Alice, On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> wrote: Cross Community Discussion on Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) Policy Requirements 15:15-18:30 https://schedule.icann.org/event/B3oo/cross-community-discussion-on-next-generation-gtld-registration-directory-services-rds-policy-requirements[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_B3oo_cross-2Dcommunity-2Ddiscussion-2Don-2Dnext-2Dgeneration-2Dgtld-2Dregistration-2Ddirectory-2Dservices-2Drds-2Dpolicy-2Drequirements&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=hgoi2V8bykqXjZC9kZZRTDSEJ4lQIyKh6k8Q-TUv6Ks&m=OKZ3sVlXiEChEgOZ0HI97Pu6xb2Ueo7lSLp94jkXxOg&s=-O9kau-YCTm-6N-Tn2N3pIV4OMZkLZyLxp2KNQHYId0&e=> Where can the slides from this section be downloaded? Thank you! -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
In preparation for the meeting tomorrow, I would like to explain why I feel that we should limit our scope to an in depth review of the first WHOIS-RT recommendations and their implementation. This is specifically called for in section (iv) of the Bylaw governing this review: The Directory Service Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Directory Service Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect. As the first phase of this, MSSI should, with the support of the appropriate ICANN departments, prepare a full assessment of the WHOIS_RT Recommendations and their implementation, and do so prior to our first formal face-to-face meeting. Any future replacement for WHOIS is being discussed in the GNSO Next-Generation RDS PDP and is clearly our of scope. Privacy issues with the current WHOIS are clearly an issue, but I do not believe that this RT is the proper place to design any "fix" to meet GDPR issues, n ot would our time-frame meet requirements to act in the next several months. The GNSO has suggested nine focus areas that we should look at, and I would like to review them here.
1. Assess whether the RDS efforts currently underway in the ICANN community are on target to meet the "legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data."
The prime RDS effort is the GNSO PDP. Given that the PDP is not at a stage to make any recommendations, I do see how we could assess its outcomes. If indeed it is thought to be in trouble, it is the sole responsibility of the GNSO to take action. A RT recommendation to the Board cannot do that.
2. Assess the RDS efforts currently underway (or planned in the near term), for the purpose of making recommendations regarding how they might be improved and better coordinated.
Again, I do not know what crystal ball we have to do this.
3. Ongoing work by the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team (see Recommendation 10 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
To the extent that this is an aspect of a previous WHOIS-RT recommendation, it falls within the purview of the review of the last RT's work
4. Progress of cross validation implementation (see Recommendations 6 and 7, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
5. Review compliance enforcement actions, structure and processes (see Recommendation 4, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
6. Availability of transparent data concerning enforcement of contractual obligations of WHOIS.
I am not sure exactly what this means, but it may well fall within the reasonable purview of this RT.
7. Assess the value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol.
Although RDAP, or an evolution of it, is a likely choice for implementing a future RDS, I do not see how we can assess the value of RDAP without having the specific requirements for that RDS. In terms of timing, if the current RDAP ends up being sufficient, timing is not an issue, and if it required enhancement, the timing is not something that we are really equipped to predict.
8. To the extent time and bandwidth permit, evaluate the effectiveness of any other steps ICANN has taken to implement Recommendations 3-11 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report.
Agreed.
9. Ensure no duplication of work that is the responsibility of the GNSO's RDS Policy Development Process Working Group.
Agreed. Alan
I tend to agree with Alan's analysis here. I would also suggest that we look at the Internationalisation of WHOIS as part of this scope. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In preparation for the meeting tomorrow, I would like to explain why I feel that we should limit our scope to an in depth review of the first WHOIS-RT recommendations and their implementation. This is specifically called for in section (iv) of the Bylaw governing this review:
*The Directory Service Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Directory Service Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect. *As the first phase of this, MSSI should, with the support of the appropriate ICANN departments, prepare a full assessment of the WHOIS_RT Recommendations and their implementation, and do so prior to our first formal face-to-face meeting.
Any future replacement for WHOIS is being discussed in the GNSO Next-Generation RDS PDP and is clearly our of scope. Privacy issues with the current WHOIS are clearly an issue, but I do not believe that this RT is the proper place to design any "fix" to meet GDPR issues, n ot would our time-frame meet requirements to act in the next several months.
The GNSO has suggested nine focus areas that we should look at, and I would like to review them here.
1. Assess whether the RDS efforts currently underway in the ICANN community are on target to meet the “legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.”
The prime RDS effort is the GNSO PDP. Given that the PDP is not at a stage to make any recommendations, I do see how we could assess its outcomes. If indeed it is thought to be in trouble, it is the sole responsibility of the GNSO to take action. A RT recommendation to the Board cannot do that.
2. Assess the RDS efforts currently underway (or planned in the near term), for the purpose of making recommendations regarding how they might be improved and better coordinated.
Again, I do not know what crystal ball we have to do this.
3. Ongoing work by the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team (see Recommendation 10 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
To the extent that this is an aspect of a previous WHOIS-RT recommendation, it falls within the purview of the review of the last RT's work
4. Progress of cross validation implementation (see Recommendations 6 and 7, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
5. Review compliance enforcement actions, structure and processes (see Recommendation 4, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
6. Availability of transparent data concerning enforcement of contractual obligations of WHOIS.
I am not sure exactly what this means, but it may well fall within the reasonable purview of this RT.
7. Assess the value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol.
Although RDAP, or an evolution of it, is a likely choice for implementing a future RDS, I do not see how we can assess the value of RDAP without having the specific requirements for that RDS. In terms of timing, if the current RDAP ends up being sufficient, timing is not an issue, and if it required enhancement, the timing is not something that we are really equipped to predict.
8. To the extent time and bandwidth permit, evaluate the effectiveness of any other steps ICANN has taken to implement Recommendations 3-11 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report.
Agreed.
9. Ensure no duplication of work that is the responsibility of the GNSO’s RDS Policy Development Process Working Group.
Agreed.
Alan
_______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
Greetings All, I am unlikely to make the meeting later today because of ccTLD commitments. I have a couple of comments on Alan’s note below from a Board perspective. Cheers, Chris
On 26 Jun 2017, at 22:00, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In preparation for the meeting tomorrow, I would like to explain why I feel that we should limit our scope to an in depth review of the first WHOIS-RT recommendations and their implementation. This is specifically called for in section (iv) of the Bylaw governing this review: The Directory Service Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Directory Service Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect.
As the first phase of this, MSSI should, with the support of the appropriate ICANN departments, prepare a full assessment of the WHOIS_RT Recommendations and their implementation, and do so prior to our first formal face-to-face meeting.
Any future replacement for WHOIS is being discussed in the GNSO Next-Generation RDS PDP and is clearly our of scope. Privacy issues with the current WHOIS are clearly an issue, but I do not believe that this RT is the proper place to design any "fix" to meet GDPR issues, n ot would our time-frame meet requirements to act in the next several months.
I tend to agree.
The GNSO has suggested nine focus areas that we should look at, and I would like to review them here.
1. Assess whether the RDS efforts currently underway in the ICANN community are on target to meet the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.
The prime RDS effort is the GNSO PDP. Given that the PDP is not at a stage to make any recommendations, I do see how we could assess its outcomes. If indeed it is thought to be in trouble, it is the sole responsibility of the GNSO to take action. A RT recommendation to the Board cannot do that.
Alan is correct. The Board would have no power to implement any such recommendation from the RT.
2. Assess the RDS efforts currently underway (or planned in the near term), for the purpose of making recommendations regarding how they might be improved and better coordinated.
Again, I do not know what crystal ball we have to do this.
Again, the Board would have no power to implement such recommendations in respect to the GNSO PDP.
3. Ongoing work by the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team (see Recommendation 10 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
To the extent that this is an aspect of a previous WHOIS-RT recommendation, it falls within the purview of the review of the last RT's work
4. Progress of cross validation implementation (see Recommendations 6 and 7, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
5. Review compliance enforcement actions, structure and processes (see Recommendation 4, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
6. Availability of transparent data concerning enforcement of contractual obligations of WHOIS.
I am not sure exactly what this means, but it may well fall within the reasonable purview of this RT.
7. Assess the value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol.
Although RDAP, or an evolution of it, is a likely choice for implementing a future RDS, I do not see how we can assess the value of RDAP without having the specific requirements for that RDS. In terms of timing, if the current RDAP ends up being sufficient, timing is not an issue, and if it required enhancement, the timing is not something that we are really equipped to predict.
8. To the extent time and bandwidth permit, evaluate the effectiveness of any other steps ICANN has taken to implement Recommendations 3-11 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report.
Agreed.
9. Ensure no duplication of work that is the responsibility of the GNSOs RDS Policy Development Process Working Group.
Agreed.
Alan _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
Thank you for your thoughts, Alan, As discussed in our informal meeting, I mostly agree with your assessment, however I do feel we should not exclude any issues that have arisen since the first review team presented its report or that may have been overlooked at the time. This includes the issue of conflicts with privacy legislation. While I agree that we should not attempt to solve this issue, we do need to look at it and point out the problems that exist. If we turned a blind eye to any such issues, we would not have done our work properly. Best, Volker Am 26.06.2017 um 23:00 schrieb Alan Greenberg:
In preparation for the meeting tomorrow, I would like to explain why I feel that we should limit our scope to an in depth review of the first WHOIS-RT recommendations and their implementation. This is specifically called for in section (iv) of the Bylaw governing this review: /The Directory Service Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Directory Service Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect.
/As the first phase of this, MSSI should, with the support of the appropriate ICANN departments, prepare a full assessment of the WHOIS_RT Recommendations and their implementation, and do so prior to our first formal face-to-face meeting.
Any future replacement for WHOIS is being discussed in the GNSO Next-Generation RDS PDP and is clearly our of scope. Privacy issues with the current WHOIS are clearly an issue, but I do not believe that this RT is the proper place to design any "fix" to meet GDPR issues, n ot would our time-frame meet requirements to act in the next several months.
The GNSO has suggested nine focus areas that we should look at, and I would like to review them here.
1. Assess whether the RDS efforts currently underway in the ICANN community are on target to meet the “legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.”
The prime RDS effort is the GNSO PDP. Given that the PDP is not at a stage to make any recommendations, I do see how we could assess its outcomes. If indeed it is thought to be in trouble, it is the sole responsibility of the GNSO to take action. A RT recommendation to the Board cannot do that.
2. Assess the RDS efforts currently underway (or planned in the near term), for the purpose of making recommendations regarding how they might be improved and better coordinated.
Again, I do not know what crystal ball we have to do this.
3. Ongoing work by the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team (see Recommendation 10 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
To the extent that this is an aspect of a previous WHOIS-RT recommendation, it falls within the purview of the review of the last RT's work
4. Progress of cross validation implementation (see Recommendations 6 and 7, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
5. Review compliance enforcement actions, structure and processes (see Recommendation 4, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
6. Availability of transparent data concerning enforcement of contractual obligations of WHOIS.
I am not sure exactly what this means, but it may well fall within the reasonable purview of this RT.
7. Assess the value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol.
Although RDAP, or an evolution of it, is a likely choice for implementing a future RDS, I do not see how we can assess the value of RDAP without having the specific requirements for that RDS. In terms of timing, if the current RDAP ends up being sufficient, timing is not an issue, and if it required enhancement, the timing is not something that we are really equipped to predict.
8. To the extent time and bandwidth permit, evaluate the effectiveness of any other steps ICANN has taken to implement Recommendations 3-11 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report.
Agreed.
9. Ensure no duplication of work that is the responsibility of the GNSO’s RDS Policy Development Process Working Group.
Agreed.
Alan
_______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
In addition— For those who may be interested in attending the Wednesday 28 June RDS Policy Development Process WG Face to Face meeting at 08:30: SESSION DESCRIPTION: <http://sched.co/B49L> http://sched.co/B49L LOCATION: <https://icann59johannesburg2017.sched.com/venue/Ballroom+2+%28GNSO%29> Ballroom 2 (GNSO) LINK FOR ADOBE CONNECT: <https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-ballroom> https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-ballroom SLIDES: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64947348/ICANN59-RDS-PDP-WG...> ICANN59-RDS-PDP-WG-F2F-Slides-v3.pdf Best regards Lisa From: rds-whois2-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rds-whois2-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 5:29 PM To: Dmitry Belyavsky Cc: RDS WHOIS2-RT List Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] [Ext] Re: Preparing for ICANN 59 Hi Dmitry, The meeting materials from this session can be found on the page - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Cross-Community+Disc... Thanks, Best regards Alice From: Dmitry Belyavsky <beldmit@gmail.com> Date: Monday 26 June 2017 at 16:50 To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> Cc: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Preparing for ICANN 59 Hello Alice, On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote: Cross Community Discussion on Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) Policy Requirements 15:15-18:30 https://schedule.icann.org/event/B3oo/cross-community-discussion-on-next-generation-gtld-registration-directory-services-rds-policy-requirements[schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_even...> Where can the slides from this section be downloaded? Thank you! -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alice Jansen -
Carlton Samuels -
Chris Disspain -
Dmitry Belyavsky -
Lisa Phifer -
Volker Greimann