[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Attendance and MP3 RDS WG Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 05:00UTC
Grace Mutung'u (Bomu)
nmutungu at gmail.com
Thu Feb 25 10:56:12 UTC 2016
Apologies for missing the call. I will review the transcript.
Regards,
2016-02-24 18:24 GMT+03:00 Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
--
Grace L.N. Mutung'u
Nairobi Kenya
Skype: gracebomu
Twitter: @Bomu
<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu>
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160225/286e107d/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list