[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Back to basics
kdrstoll at gmail.com
Thu May 12 16:52:51 UTC 2016
Thank you for this. I never understood from where ICANN takes the right
for Specification 4 and still don't. Maybe someone can enlighten me,
there might be a very good reason that eludes me.
Until then, I still think that ICANN should only be responsible for the
information that is needed for the DNS. If a Registry wants to add
fields, they should be able to do this under the limits of the law under
which they are registered. In an ideal case these additional field
should be voluntarily for the Registrant on an opt in basis.
If ICANN acts as a regulator at one point and as a technical
co-ordination at another, does ICANN do it to ensure the different
aspects of a secure and staple DNS. If yes, then this logic should be
explained, discussed and made transparent, (isn't what the policy making
processes and the WG's are for), if not, ICANN has a real problem.
On 5/12/2016 12:04 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> Unfortunately, if a Registry wants to collect addition data and display it.
> It needs ICANN permission since Specification 4 states what can be displayed
> and in what format. So when .NYC, .CAPETOWN, .JOBURG and .DURBAN wanted to
> add their additional fields for business purposes. They first needed to
> submit an RSEP and then get permission from ICANN to modify their Registry
> Agreement. The way the Registry Agreement has been written and how ICANN has
> interpreted "registry services" it gives ICANN incredible latitude to act as
> a regulator instead of a mere technical coordinating body.
> Best regards,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Stoll
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 2:55 AM
> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Back to basics
> Dear WG
> Thank you for a fascinating ongoing discussion.
> I wonder if in the context of data collection a back to basics approach
> would be helpful: Only the data that is absolutely necessary to operate the
> DNS in a stable and secure manner should be collected. Everything else is
> out of the remit of ICANN. Additional data can be collected independently of
> ICANN but only based on consent between registrars and registrants.
> I know this approach is naive, but it might serve as a base line.
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg