CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations
Dear review team members, Following up on the action item identified on today’s plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg> and Alan’s previous email, review team members are kindly invited to indicate whether you support the attached final recommendations. Should there be any non-support of a recommendation please explain your objection. Please reply no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 07 February 2019. If you are NOT supporting any recommendation, early notice will be appreciated. Minority Statements to be sent no later than Wednesday 13 February 2019 - 12:00 UTC Please note that on today’s call, R5.1 priority level was assigned to High Priority. If you have any comments or concerned, please submit them in reply to this email. Alan, Lili, Carlton, Susan, Dmitry and Cathrin have confirmed support of all recommendations on plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg>. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste
Dear review team members, Please also note the updated text on prioritization of recommendations presented on plenary call by Susan: * High priority – These recommendations will create the most impact and the review team found the actions recommended were critical to the WHOIS ecosystem. The actions required may be complex and could involve in depth analysis and action. Most involve community input which can be time consuming so the Board may wish to focus on these first. * Medium priority – These recommendations are not quite complex as the high priority but could involve time consuming research and implementation. Most require actions only by ICANN org so they should be implementable without much community input. * Low priority – some of these recommendations are dependent on other recommendations, call for limited actions or are deferred until other actions have been completed. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:30 PM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations Dear review team members, Following up on the action item identified on today’s plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg> and Alan’s previous email, review team members are kindly invited to indicate whether you support the attached final recommendations. Should there be any non-support of a recommendation please explain your objection. Please reply no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 07 February 2019. If you are NOT supporting any recommendation, early notice will be appreciated. Minority Statements to be sent no later than Wednesday 13 February 2019 - 12:00 UTC Please note that on today’s call, R5.1 priority level was assigned to High Priority. If you have any comments or concerned, please submit them in reply to this email. Alan, Lili, Carlton, Susan, Dmitry and Cathrin have confirmed support of all recommendations on plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg>. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste
Dear review team members, While you review the final recommendations, we would like to remind you to confirm the operational input received (see attached) at the fourth face-to-face meeting was addressed and incorporated in the final recommendations. In addition, we would like to highlight two items from final report recommendations that require your review: Common interface recommendations do not seem to have taken into account the concerns around its implementation: “On recommendation 11.1 (common interface), based on the review team’s suggested implementation, it appears that the metrics and SLAs asked for in the recommendation are intended for use by ICANN org as mechanisms to proactively identify compliance issues. ICANN org would like to note that there are multiple reasons queries could return blank fields, or no results. It is not possible programmatically to determine the causes of these results. Additionally, per the Temporary Specification, gTLD registration data results could differ between registry and registrar outputs. Therefore, inconsistencies in registrar and registry gTLD registration data outputs are not necessarily compliance issues. ICANN org would also like to inform the RDS-WHOIS2 review team that the existing WHOIS look-up tool at whois.icann.org will be updated in the coming months with a new tool built on RDAP. It is possible and intended that the new tool would function in such a way that no data would be collected by ICANN org.” On recommendation BY.1, the implementation note reads: Implementation: The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team believes that this recommendation can be carried out by the ICANN Community, following the process foreseen by the current Bylaws Section 4.6(a)(v). This section will need updating, as the process associated with suggested Bylaws amendments is documented in Article 25 of ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article25) Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:58 PM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations Dear review team members, Please also note the updated text on prioritization of recommendations presented on plenary call by Susan: * High priority – These recommendations will create the most impact and the review team found the actions recommended were critical to the WHOIS ecosystem. The actions required may be complex and could involve in depth analysis and action. Most involve community input which can be time consuming so the Board may wish to focus on these first. * Medium priority – These recommendations are not quite complex as the high priority but could involve time consuming research and implementation. Most require actions only by ICANN org so they should be implementable without much community input. * Low priority – some of these recommendations are dependent on other recommendations, call for limited actions or are deferred until other actions have been completed. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:30 PM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations Dear review team members, Following up on the action item identified on today’s plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg> and Alan’s previous email, review team members are kindly invited to indicate whether you support the attached final recommendations. Should there be any non-support of a recommendation please explain your objection. Please reply no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 07 February 2019. If you are NOT supporting any recommendation, early notice will be appreciated. Minority Statements to be sent no later than Wednesday 13 February 2019 - 12:00 UTC Please note that on today’s call, R5.1 priority level was assigned to High Priority. If you have any comments or concerned, please submit them in reply to this email. Alan, Lili, Carlton, Susan, Dmitry and Cathrin have confirmed support of all recommendations on plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg>. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste
We are, sadly, working every day on the EPDP. It is hard to focus on this when the other matter is more urgent. Sorry for the delay. Stephanie On 2019-02-07 16:35, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez wrote: Dear review team members, While you review the final recommendations, we would like to remind you to confirm the operational input received (see attached) at the fourth face-to-face meeting was addressed and incorporated in the final recommendations. In addition, we would like to highlight two items from final report recommendations that require your review: Common interface recommendations do not seem to have taken into account the concerns around its implementation: “On recommendation 11.1 (common interface), based on the review team’s suggested implementation, it appears that the metrics and SLAs asked for in the recommendation are intended for use by ICANN org as mechanisms to proactively identify compliance issues. ICANN org would like to note that there are multiple reasons queries could return blank fields, or no results. It is not possible programmatically to determine the causes of these results. Additionally, per the Temporary Specification, gTLD registration data results could differ between registry and registrar outputs. Therefore, inconsistencies in registrar and registry gTLD registration data outputs are not necessarily compliance issues. ICANN org would also like to inform the RDS-WHOIS2 review team that the existing WHOIS look-up tool at whois.icann.org will be updated in the coming months with a new tool built on RDAP. It is possible and intended that the new tool would function in such a way that no data would be collected by ICANN org.” On recommendation BY.1, the implementation note reads: Implementation: The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team believes that this recommendation can be carried out by the ICANN Community, following the process foreseen by the current Bylaws Section 4.6(a)(v). This section will need updating, as the process associated with suggested Bylaws amendments is documented in Article 25 of ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article25) Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org><mailto:jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:58 PM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org><mailto:rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations Dear review team members, Please also note the updated text on prioritization of recommendations presented on plenary call by Susan: * High priority – These recommendations will create the most impact and the review team found the actions recommended were critical to the WHOIS ecosystem. The actions required may be complex and could involve in depth analysis and action. Most involve community input which can be time consuming so the Board may wish to focus on these first. * Medium priority – These recommendations are not quite complex as the high priority but could involve time consuming research and implementation. Most require actions only by ICANN org so they should be implementable without much community input. * Low priority – some of these recommendations are dependent on other recommendations, call for limited actions or are deferred until other actions have been completed. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org><mailto:jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:30 PM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org><mailto:rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations Dear review team members, Following up on the action item identified on today’s plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg> and Alan’s previous email, review team members are kindly invited to indicate whether you support the attached final recommendations. Should there be any non-support of a recommendation please explain your objection. Please reply no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 07 February 2019. If you are NOT supporting any recommendation, early notice will be appreciated. Minority Statements to be sent no later than Wednesday 13 February 2019 - 12:00 UTC Please note that on today’s call, R5.1 priority level was assigned to High Priority. If you have any comments or concerned, please submit them in reply to this email. Alan, Lili, Carlton, Susan, Dmitry and Cathrin have confirmed support of all recommendations on plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg>. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org<mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
Hi all, it seems that current ICANN planning is already making this recommendation obsolete. If the new portal works in a fashion where no data is collected by ICANN, which would be a logical implementation from a GDPR-standpoint, then our current recommendation is rendered moot. I could live with removing it in its entirety, but I am sure others may be opposed to that. ICANN seems to be misunderstanding our intent with regard to differing registry and registrar outputs, however as we also did not see this as a compliance issue but rather a recommendation to achieve a more complete picture to the requester. Volker Am 07.02.2019 um 22:35 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Deroulez:
Dear review team members,
While you review the final recommendations, we would like to remind you to confirm the operational input received (see attached) at the fourth face-to-face meeting was addressed and incorporated in the final recommendations.
In addition, we would like to highlight two items from final report recommendations that require your review:
Common interface recommendations do not seem to have taken into account the concerns around its implementation: /“On recommendation 11.1 (common interface), based on the review team’s suggested implementation, it appears that the metrics and SLAs asked for in the recommendation are intended for use by ICANN org as mechanisms to proactively identify compliance issues. ICANN org would like to note that there are multiple reasons queries could return blank fields, or no results. It is not possible programmatically to determine the causes of these results. Additionally, per the Temporary Specification, gTLD registration data results could differ between registry and registrar outputs. Therefore, inconsistencies in registrar and registry gTLD registration data outputs are not necessarily compliance issues. ICANN org would also like to inform the RDS-WHOIS2 review team that the existing WHOIS look-up tool at whois.icann.org will be updated in the coming months with a new tool built on RDAP. It is possible and intended that the new tool would function in such a way that no data would be collected by ICANN org.”/
On recommendation *BY.1, *the implementation note reads:
*Implementation*:
The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team believes that this recommendation can be carried out by the ICANN Community, following the process foreseen by the *current Bylaws Section 4.6(a)(v)*.
This section will need updating, as the process associated with suggested Bylaws amendments is documented *in Article 25 of ICANN Bylaws* (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article25)
Kind regards,
Jean-Baptiste
*From: *Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:58 PM *To: *RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations
Dear review team members,
Please also note the updated text on prioritization of recommendations presented on plenary call by Susan:
* *High priority *– These recommendations will create the most impact and the review team found the actions recommended were critical to the WHOIS ecosystem. The actions required may be complex and could involve in depth analysis and action. Most involve community input which can be time consuming so the Board may wish to focus on these first. * *Medium priority *– These recommendations are not quite complex as the high priority but could involve time consuming research and implementation. Most require actions only by ICANN org so they should be implementable without much community input. * *Low priority *– some of these recommendations are dependent on other recommendations, call for limited actions or are deferred until other actions have been completed.
Kind regards,
Jean-Baptiste
*From: *Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:30 PM *To: *RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> *Subject: *CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations
Dear review team members,
Following up on the action item identified on today’s plenary call #48 <https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg> and Alan’s previous email, review team members are kindly invited to indicate whether you support the attached final recommendations.
Should there be any non-support of a recommendation please explain your objection. Please reply *_no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 07 February 2019_*. If you are NOT supporting any recommendation, early notice will be appreciated.
Minority Statements to be sent no later than *Wednesday 13 February 2019 - 12:00 UTC*
Please note that on today’s call, R5.1 priority level was assigned to High Priority. If you have any comments or concerned, please submit them in reply to this email.
Alan, Lili, Carlton, Susan, Dmitry and Cathrin have confirmed support of all recommendations on plenary call #48 <https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg>.
Kind regards,
Jean-Baptiste
_______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
-- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
If something is made obsolete, fine. We are acting on what we see today and known future. I believe I replied regarding the ICANN Org comments but will verify. Alan At 18/02/2019 07:10 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi all, it seems that current ICANN planning is already making this recommendation obsolete. If the new portal works in a fashion where no data is collected by ICANN, which would be a logical implementation from a GDPR-standpoint, then our current recommendation is rendered moot. I could live with removing it in its entirety, but I am sure others may be opposed to that. ICANN seems to be misunderstanding our intent with regard to differing registry and registrar outputs, however as we also did not see this as a compliance issue but rather a recommendation to achieve a more complete picture to the requester. Volker Am 07.02.2019 um 22:35 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Deroulez: Dear review team members, While you review the final recommendations, we would like to remind you to confirm the operational input received (see attached) at the fourth face-to-face meeting was addressed and incorporated in the final recommendations. In addition, we would like to highlight two items from final report recommendations that require your review: Common interface recommendations do not seem to have taken into account the concerns around its implementation: “On recommendation 11.1 (common interface), based on the review team’s suggested implementation, it appears that the metrics and SLAs asked for in the recommendation are intended for use by ICANN org as mechanisms to proactively identify compliance issues. ICANN org would like to note that there are multiple reasons queries could return blank fields, or no results. It is not possible programmatically to determine the causes of these results. Additionally, per the Temporary Specification, gTLD registration data results could differ between registry and registrar outputs. Therefore, inconsistencies in registrar and registry gTLD registration data outputs are not necessarily compliance issues. ICANN org would also like to inform the RDS-WHOIS2 review team that the existing WHOIS look-up tool at whois.icann.org will be updated in the coming months with a new tool built on RDAP. It is possible and intended that the new tool would function in such a way that no data would be collected by ICANN org.” On recommendation BY.1, the implementation note reads: Implementation: The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team believes that this recommendation can be carried out by the ICANN Community, following the process foreseen by the current Bylaws Section 4.6(a)(v). This section will need updating, as the process associated with suggested Bylaws amendments is documented in Article 25 of ICANN Bylaws ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article25 ) Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org><mailto:jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:58 PM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org><mailto:rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations Dear review team members, Please also note the updated text on prioritization of recommendations presented on plenary call by Susan: * High priority � These recommendations will create the most impact and the review team found the actions recommended were critical to the WHOIS ecosystem. The actions required may be complex and could involve in depth analysis and action. Most involve community input which can be time consuming so the Board may wish to focus on these first. * Medium priority � These recommendations are not quite complex as the high priority but could involve time consuming research and implementation. Most require actions only by ICANN org so they should be implementable without much community input. * Low priority � some of these recommendations are dependent on other recommendations, call for limited actions or are deferred until other actions have been completed. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org><mailto:jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:30 PM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org><mailto:rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Final Recommendations Dear review team members, Following up on the action item identified on today’s plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg> and Alan’s previous email, review team members are kindly invited to indicate whether you support the attached final recommendations. Should there be any non-support of a recommendation please explain your objection. Please reply no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 07 February 2019. If you are NOT supporting any recommendation, early notice will be appreciated. Minority Statements to be sent no later than Wednesday 13 February 2019 - 12:00 UTC Please note that on today’s call, R5.1 priority level was assigned to High Priority. If you have any comments or concerned, please submit them in reply to this email. Alan, Lili, Carlton, Susan, Dmitry and Cathrin have confirmed support of all recommendations on plenary call #48<https://community.icann.org/x/Fp4WBg>. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org<mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Jean-Baptiste Deroulez -
Stephanie Perrin -
Volker Greimann