[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )

[Gomes, Chuck]

The GNSO is the policy making body for gTLDs.

Chuck

From: isolatedn at gmail.com [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )

Who are the policy makers in the multi-stakeholder framework?  Why not ICANN pay attention, at least to facilitate discussion on  this topic?

Sivasubramanian M

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck at verisign.com<mailto:shollenbeck at verisign.com>> wrote:
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 10:58 AM
To: Sivasubramanian M
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )

It is not clear to me that the IETF needs to focus on the “complexities of matters concerning Registrant Data” but I will let our IETF experts comment on that.

[SAH] It’s important to note that the IETF process we followed to develop RDAP did indeed include (for example) considerations for the protection of registrant data, but we tried to stay away from enshrining policies associated with that data. That’s work to be done by policy makers.

Scott

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160725/fdc540f0/attachment.html>