[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Attendance and MP3 RDS WG Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 05:00UTC
Farell Folly
farellfolly at gmail.com
Wed Feb 24 15:17:43 UTC 2016
Dear all,
Due to time confusion, I missed the call. I apologize for that and present
my sincere excuses to all.
I will listen to the record and review action items ASAP.
Meilleures salutations,
--ff--
2016-02-24 14:03 GMT+01:00 Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160224/7e9e4d7e/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list