[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Apr 28 19:09:22 UTC 2016
To be precise, Steve believes that the review
should or must take place. He may end up being right. Or not.
Alan
At 28/04/2016 11:54 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Thank you for raising awareness of this pending
>review. I do not have enough knowledge of the
>bylaws (or of the different Policy Development
>Processes underway in relation to WHOIS) to
>comment here on the merits of maintaining the
>review cycle versus potentially adjusting it
>given our overlapping PDPs, but I would like to
>share this
><https://links9.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/wHab0jdTK78RoGAmy?messageId=mB63clYst31h2ZFGb&rn=icmcv5ibuF2YpB0Z31CckBXLzRmct82cudmI&re=icmcv5ibuF2YpB0Z31CckBXLzRmct82cudmI>email
>from Steve Crocker today. Dr Crocker, speaking
>in his personal capacity, seems to indicate that
>the WHOIS-RT will be taking place.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Ayden Férdeline
>
>On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 4:18 PM, Gomes, Chuck
><mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com wrote:
>
>Thanks for the quick feedback Steve. I
>wouldnât see the WG spending very much time on
>this, but, that said, your points are understood.
>
>
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:13 AM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; Andrew Sullivan; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review
>
>
>
>Chuck and colleagues,
>
>
>
>I would urge caution about this, for two reasons.
>
>
>
>First, opining on this question clearly seems
>outside the scope of our charter. Some might
>wonder whether diverting WG bandwidth to this
>issue suggests we have extra time on our hands
>that we donât need to devote to the task assigned to us.
>
>
>
>Second, it is worth remembering that the AoC
>review and this effort address two distinct
>(though certainly overlapping) issues. The
>review is about whether ICANN is effectively
>implementing the current system. This WG is
>about whether the current system should be
>changed (or replaced), in light of the purposes RDS is supposed to serve.
>
>
>
>When the Board unanimously approved the
>recommendations of the first Whois review
>team, they established two tracks of ongoing
>activity. The first involved improving Whois
>accuracy and accessibility (i.e., implementing
>the current system). The second track led to
>the WG we have now. The board, at least, pretty
>clearly contemplated that both efforts would proceed in parallel.
>
>
>
>None of this is to discourage WG members from
>weighing in on this question individually or
>through other ICANN structures. To the
>contrary, the perspectives of many of our WG
>members could contribute a lot to the discussion.
>
>
>
>Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From:
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:59 AM
>To: Andrew Sullivan;
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review
>
>
>
>I wonder if the RDS PDP WG or possibly the
>leaders of the WG with support from the full WG
>should prepare and submit a letter to the Board
>on this? Thoughts? It is definitely an awkward
>situation but one that I think needs to be dealt with in some way.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:52 AM
>To: <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review
>
>On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:43:15PM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> >
> > Any WHOIS-RT should be delayed until at least
> 12 months after this PDP is completed.
>
>I don't see how that's going to be possible. The
>proposed bylaws won't make that possible, and as
>nearly as I can tell they are an accurate
>reflection of what the CCWG's report said. If
>the bylaws don't reflect what the
>CCWG-Accountability report says, there's a much
>bigger process problem than the waste of
>resources and energy: many people feel that a
>big problem historically has been implementation
>of community instructions, and if we don't
>cleave tightly to the community instructions in
>this case we shall have a serious legitimacy problem.
>
>I agree it'd be wasteful, but I'm not sure how to avoid it.
>
>A
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
><mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160428/7cd813bf/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list