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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu May 5 05:07:09 UTC 2016

For clarity, in the Draft Bylaws, it is an RDS Review.

Messages here have little use other than to convince ourselves we are 
right. Comments on the Public Comment *might* change things.

There IS work for a review team. While we are talking here, the 
existing Whois is still running and it is important to know to what 
extent the last WHOIS Review recommendations have been implemented 
and what the impact has been. I just don't think that needs to be 
done by a bottom-up community review.


At 04/05/2016 11:22 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>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 A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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 - 
>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 
>, Page 33, Section 4.6(e)(v).
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160505/a88c4035/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list