[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed May 11 16:53:02 UTC 2016

Again, the "we" is broader than the multistakeholder community we know and
love.  Or rather there are stakeholders who may or may not participate
heavily here, or who may not be identified as a discrete "stakeholder
group" but who in fact each have a set of common concerns.  Geoffrey Noakes
has identified one such group -- Certification Authorities.  Some of these
companies may participate in ICANN, but without a defined home or voice.
Law enforcement is another -- while it speaks to some extent in and through
the GAC,  it is not a discrete group (although the GAC Public Safety WG may
partially remedy that).

Also, I fear that in truncating the question in the Charter, the meaning of
the question, and thus our mission, is inadvertently being distorted.  The
question we are being asked is "Why a next-generation Registration
Directory Service (RDS) is needed to replace WHOIS?" *not* "Why do we need
RDS (or WHOIS) at all?"  In other words, the question is really akin to "Do
we need to replace WHOIS with RDS?"

The 3 phase process in the Charter makes this clear:

Accordingly, the GNSO Council is proceeding with the Board-requested PDP,
using the Framework’s 3-phase process to
(1) establish gTLD registration data requirements to determine if and why a
next-generation RDS is needed,
(2) design policies that detail functions that must be provided by a
next-generation RDS to support those requirements, and
(3) provide guidance for how a next-generation RDS should implement those
policies, coexisting with and eventually replacing WHOIS.


On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:

> Steve,
> More than happy to grant you your point.
> My only additional observation is that there is the  "we" - the
> multistakeholder community we know and love.
> But there is also a "they", the national and regional policy making bodies
> that will think, and act, as though they,
> within their own jurisdictions, are responsible for dealing with many of
> these data issues.
> The stakeholder constituencies have to be even more active at those levels
> than they are within ICANN,
> if the "we" wishes to protect what it feels should be protected
> (access/privacy) in this data space.
> Those national/regional authorities have more binding policy powers than
> are found within ICANN.
> They can overrule ICANN, within their jurisdictions, but ICANN cannot
> overrule them from within its remit.
> Sam
> On 5/11/2016 12:04 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> This focus is much too narrow, to the extent that it is limited to the
> business/institutional needs of ICANN and its contracted parties for data.
> There is a big world out there of people and institutions, who are neither
> ICANN nor its contracted parties, who have relied for decades upon access
> to registration data for a myriad of lawful and productive purposes.  They
> also have an interest in how we answer the question “why we need an RDS.”
> To answer that question we first need to decide who is “we”.
> Steve Metalitz
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160511/d5221307/attachment.html>

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