[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Attendance and MP3 RDS WG Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 05:00UTC
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
devtee at gmail.com
Wed Feb 24 15:24:17 UTC 2016
Apologies also for missing the call.
Dev Anand
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO
>> Master Calendar page:
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ** 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list