[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review

[Carlton Samuels]

No.  It would not be usefu for a WHOIS-RT at this stage.

I think we are now largely agreed that what is WHOIS is not longer fit to
purpose. End of Review.

Let's get the RDS defined and going before we review that.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> As most of you are probably aware, the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)
> WHOIS-RT was convened in late 2010, and according to the AoC, a second one
> should have been convened three years later in 2013 (or depending on how
> you interpret the wording, in mid-2015, three years after its report was
> issued. The Review has been postponed (several times I think) by the Board.
>
> The draft Bylaws that will likely soon be enacted shortly following the
> CCWG Accountability incorporate the AoC Reviews into the Bylaws and set a
> maximum of five years from the date a RT is convened until the next one
> must be convened. Under these revised rules, a second WHOIS-RT (which would
> be an RDS-RT) must have been convened in late 2015. So as soon as we enact
> the Bylaws, we will already be in violation and the Board will have no
> wriggle room but to convene a RT immediately.
>
> Given the work that is going on regarding RDS, it might be hard to think
> up a larger waste of community effort and ICANN staff and funding than to
> convene a RT on the subject now. At least that is my opinion.
>
> At this stage, the rules we are working under say that the Bylaws should
> reflect the exact approved recommendations of the CCWG. The issue was
> raised in yesterday's CCWG meeting and although the "official" position is
> that we cannot make changes, there was some agreement that we really do not
> want to do anything really dumb (or at least dumber than some folks think
> this whole accountability effort is!  ;-)  ).
>
> The CCWG legal counsel is looking at how this issue may be addressed, IF
> it is to be addressed, and input would be useful. VERY QUICKLY.
>
> So I am bringing this to the attention of this WG, and raise a few
> questions.
>
> 1. Do you think it is reasonable to convene a RDS-RT in the next few
> months?
>
> 2. If not, when should the next one be?
>
> There is an open Public Comment on the Bylaws -
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-new-bylaws-2016-04-21-en. In
> addition to answering the above questions quickly, please submit a comment
> if you think these Bylaws should not require an immediate RDS-RT.
>
> The Bylaw in question ca be found at
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-bylaws-20apr16-en.pdf
> , Page 33, Section 4.6(e)(v).
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160504/d4e44b99/attachment.html>