[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Attendance and MP3 RDS WG Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 05:00UTC

Wed Feb 24 13:03:30 UTC 2016

Dear All,

Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Next-Gen RDS PDP Working group call held on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 05:00 UTC.

MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-nextgen-rds-24feb16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI03ZqpsvgRhF8anYZT-2Fu85DJG3jGx7luPH8AqrVnOXJTDxdxXS50Kqj9GkSYFJn-2FCIm5aJEQ-3D_nEX-2FaOijqgcJlSz5SkmueJu3tRbmaDiuX89gT35tStEeSHP9whdoceObpMxYsFLQddiMZpQjIv8dk6BsBGSJXH7VWN4SGLCJgbGKCk6E-2FTErjF4OKNQt65Dk9NF54IJ9kQpmDNySj7bbNz9G4dXi5BgbCZotTx8KNfyeB0z00f8KsMfETeTNKd7vy2kKI7tttQUIwid4NAhxXgT3nZYwmloO4EsSuvDz0RLbPtFyk-2F1cNhDhVh5SXO0yrzPbJ7K2CowE3hsh9Yr-2BUpruu4Pq6K9b7HeGrlmjOB-2FoFfZis7D5LwVjktEzODTGnoecmEw6O9MM1-2BL9GVD-2FVhyUZradSG8xwxsqqqcB5-2Bvt73-2FDfF47qPSqtERv3KgJUMhpXe9SJksgu0lPb9LS6rM79dZI-2F0OZcAFtHM6lhDcbuoCCyvPQ-2FRQj8XXYsIyRc0oiqWdO-2Frxsc4lANIzHtra1YLKmdvPxt46ZPvmbvf-2FLoyNmluR1xm2HB5-2Bd5OJxpx3oL-2F0i>

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/

Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rjJ-Ag

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri Agnew

-------------------------------

Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 24 February 2016

    Terri Agnew:Welcome to the GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group teleconference held on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 05:00 UTC

  Terri Agnew:If you do wish to speak during the call, please either dial into the audio bridge and give the operator the password RDS, OR click on the telephone icon at the top of the AC room to activate your AC mics. Please remember to mute your phone and mics when not talking.

  Chuck Gomes:Hello everyone

  David Cake:Hello Chuck

  Ankur Raheja:Hello

  Aarti Bhavana:Hi All

  Michele Neylon:mute your line if you are not speaking

  Donna Austin, Neustar:Does Chuck sound very faint to everyone?

  Michele Neylon:Donna - no

 Michele Neylon:loud and clear here

  Stephanie Perrin:loud enough here

  Lawrence OlaWale-Roberts:am in the Ac room now

  Norm Ritchie:Security = cyber security?

  Elaine Pruis:may I suggest adding compliance expertise -registry and registrar.

  Donna Austin, Neustar:okay, thanks.

  Stephanie Perrin:Noted Elaine....thanks

  Ankur Raheja:+1 @ Elaine

  Lisa Phifer:Was the intent to cover first responders? Incident investigators?

  Rod Rasmussen:From a technical perspective, actually working with RDAP, whois, etc. in actual implementation - could be any angle of implementation - provision of the service or creating software/tools that use the protocols.  We should make sure we have people who've actually written code and framed architecture around "whois" involved, not just having technical expertise in a related field.

  Lawrence OlaWale-Roberts:there are some Govt institutions that administer the internet domain in country, but are not security agencies, so Govt should suffice

  Lisa Phifer:@Rod - Are you suggesting an additional category such as software/service developer?

  Greg Shatan:DNS technical specialists should also be a category!

  Rod Rasmussen:@Lisa, You could do that - coding, sure since it's not covered, but what I'm trying to get at is that we want coders or architects that have actually worked with the technical protocols involved to create systems as a specific skill set.  Scott Hallenbach type experieince.

  Tapani Tarvainen:Which category (if any) would include anti-spam organizations/companies (spamhaus &c)?

  Rod Rasmussen:@Tapani - looking for that category for myself! :-)

  Lisa Phifer:@Tapani, @Rod - perhaps cybersecurity orgs?

  Rod Rasmussen:@Lisa - Sure - but no biggie.  Right now "Technical Security" is good enough for me - we don't need to cover the entire spectrum of job descriptions if we're going to bog things down.

  David Cake:Public safety organisation is a good suggestion.

  Greg Shatan:We have legal/criminal -- I think that covers what Stephanie is talking about.

  Greg Shatan:That would have to be defense, because the other side of criminal law is law enforcement.

  Stephanie Perrin:as long as it is clear that we are not just looking at criminal prosecutors...

  Greg Shatan:That should probably be under "public safety," Stephanie.

  Michele Neylon:Private infosec companies aren't really public safety though, are they?

Greg Shatan:No.

  Greg Shatan:Public Safety is just governmental arms.

  Michele Neylon:Spamhaus being a good example

  Kiran Malancharuvil:wouldn't privacy advocates ensure the function of limiting potential overreach of law enforcement? criminal defense wouldn't come in play in this.

  Stephanie Perrin:I don't actually think privacy advocates can adequately take on the constitutional protections for due process in each jurisdiction, these are normally criminal defence matters, not privacy]

  Kal Feher:I can see the full document

  Kiran Malancharuvil:criminal defense isn't responsible for due process, constitutional law scholars are

  Marika Konings:Please note that you can resize the document by using the plus / minus sign, or even use the full screen option (the four arrows in the right hand corner)

  Richard Padilla:Morning all

  Kiran Malancharuvil:weren't there two full comment periods on the EWG report? plus comment on the issue report that referenced it?

  Lisa Phifer:@Stephanie - note that question1 is purposes

  Amr Elsadr:@Stephanie: We actually made a big deal out of asking for a new preliminary issues report (following the first one published a couple of years ago) to have the opportunity to comment on the final EWG report within the context of this PDP. Just sayin'. :)

  Stephanie Perrin:Indeed, Amr, but the problem is there was not the amount of comment that the content warranted. Always a problem of course, but the timing did not serve us well in that regard.

  Lisa Phifer:@Steph, @Amr - see 2b as opportunity for community input

  Stephanie Perrin:and yes Lisa, we will have the opportunityt to interrogate each use and purpose, but that is a different process. the global purpose will have to be threaded in each time.

  Lisa Phifer:@Steph - the overarching purpose can be one of the possible requirements, no?

  Stephanie Perrin:Wait till you see the minority reports I refrained from submitting, Chuck!

  Stephanie Perrin:Yes Lisa that would make me happy!

  Amr Elsadr:Stephanie's dissenting statement to the EWG final report was included as a document to be reviewed in the issues report. A link to it is also available on this WG's wiki.

  Lisa Phifer:Cost requirements are question 9 - however this must be revisited during phases 2 and 3

  Stephanie Perrin:Right, that is the problem...

  Lisa Phifer:For example, phase 1 identifies what costs must be measured, phase 2 may ballpark those costs

  Greg Shatan:We need to identify who's paying....

  Norm Ritchie:can cost be specified as a requirement?  ie, operatonal cost not to exceed x?  Seems difficult to me

  Greg Shatan:If you are in the Asia-Pacific region, I expect you are happy with the time of this call.  Rest of World, not so much....

  Lisa Phifer:@Norm - requirement might not be $ value, but a requirement to measure costs associated w development, deployment, maintenance, etc... and a requirement to identify who pays

  Marika Konings:@Greg - it is called 'sharing the burden' ;-)

  Lisa Phifer:Then in phase 2 those requirements could be examined against a specific set of policies

  Greg Shatan:We will be happy  to run the RDS.  :-)

  Michele Neylon:Greg - yeah you would be - we wouldn't :)

  Greg Shatan:I would want you to be happy, too, Michele....

  Amr Elsadr:@Greg: Whoah..., wait a minute. Paying for it and running it are not the same thing. ;-)

  Stephanie Perrin: If everyone paid for access to data, it would soon pay for itself....

  Greg Shatan:@Amr, the incentives are limited otherwise... :-)

  Tapani Tarvainen:@Michele: we *do* care about making spammers' lives more difficult - we want that!

  Michele Neylon:Tapani - that's what I said (indirectly)

  Tapani Tarvainen:@Michele - yes, obviously. Apologies for my odd sense of humour.

  Greg Mounier:Agree with Chuck we need to keep our respective communities informed regularly about what the WG is discussing so as to get input from them on an permanent basis.

  Marika Konings:Please note that the 35 days requirement is a minimum - the WG can always extend this timeframe, or entertain requests for extensions.

  Greg Shatan:David, could you back off your mic please?  You are way in the red....

  David Cake:Thanks Greg

  Michele Neylon:Marika - thanks for clarifying

  Michele Neylon:Greg - you have colours?

  Michele Neylon:I'm so jealous

  Marika Konings::-)

  Greg Shatan:I don't actually have needles bouncing into the red; I was being metaphorical.

  Michele Neylon:Greg - you and your metaphors

  Greg Shatan:I never metaphor i didn't like.

  Michele Neylon:Greg - you might enjoy http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992.html

  David Cake:I am enough of an audio nerd that I could see Gregs metaphorical needles.

  Nathalie Coupet:Yes

  Rod Rasmussen:The approach is solid.

  Alex Deacon:Chuck - i think the approach is great but we need to make sure we set milestones and all work hard to meet them.  A challenge but not impossible.

  Tapani Tarvainen:It is making sense to me.

  Vlad Dinculescu:I like the approach. Very well thought out.

  Richard Padilla:Yes with the approach there can always be some adjust as and when issue are different or complicated

  Michele Neylon:I was just demoing the various emotions :)

  Kal Feher:the approach is fine to me for now

  Susan Prosser:Agree with Alex - approach is good, but need structure and deadlines

  Michele Neylon:Susan - that's in the draft work plan we've been working on

  Michele Neylon:this is just the overarching approach bit

  Patrick Lenihan 2:We are on the right track....

  Lawrence OlaWale-Roberts:The approach has my support as it is clearly well thought through

  Tjabbe Bos (European Commission):Agree on the outline, but would like to stress importance of step 2b

  Marika Konings:it is not 11.00 but I believe 16.00

  Michele Neylon:Yes - Marrakech is on UTV

  Michele Neylon:UTC even

  Marika Konings:16.00 local time

  Marika Konings:See https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-rds for further details

  Terri Agnew 2:Wednesday, 09 March 2016 at 16:00 local time

  Nathalie Coupet:Thank you, Chuck!

  Amr Elsadr:Thanks Chuck and all. Bye.

  Greg Shatan:Thank you, Chuck and all!

  Marc Anderson:thank you Chuck

  Norm Ritchie:ty ... cheers

  Lisa Phifer:Thanks!

  Michele Neylon:it's Wednesday here

  Richard Padilla:Thanks

  Greg Mounier:thanks

  David Cake:Thank you Chuck.

  Lawrence OlaWale-Roberts:it's 7am here

  Vlad Dinculescu:Thanks all.

  Roger Carney:Thanks

  Susan Prosser:ty

  Michele Neylon:Europe is having breakfast

  Richard Padilla:Laters peeps

  Sara Bockey:thanks all

 Lawrence OlaWale-Roberts:bye

  Patrick Lenihan 2:Thanks again!

  Ankur Raheja:Thanks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160224/6b36b7f9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RDS 24 February 2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 185769 bytes
Desc: attendance RDS 24 February 2016.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160224/6b36b7f9/attendanceRDS24February2016.pdf>