[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS Statement of Purpose

[James Galvin]

Just to make sure I understand, my description of the life cycle 
carefully did not speak to when a domain name is under control of a 
registrant or not.  I was carefully leaving that question as a detail 
inside of the events we decide that are part of the life cycle.  This 
allows us, for example, to include “reserving” names inside of 
creation, which would make the domain name under the control of the 
registry versus the registrant.

As I understand your point, you are reminding us that the point at which 
a domain name is under control of registrant versus not will have 
downstream effects when we consider privacy laws.

Do I have that right or have I misunderstood?

Jim



On 9 Sep 2016, at 3:09, Chris Pelling wrote:

> We also need to consider that the life-cycle of the domain is not 
> entirely under the control of the registrant whom provided the data, 
> which then brings in Privacy law for example. The life-cycle meaning 
> for this purpose would need to be very well defined.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
> From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September, 2016 20:21:03
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS Statement of Purpose
>
> I expressed a concern about this on the call (it may have been in the 
> chat), along the following lines: What exactly is meant by "the 
> life-cycle of a domain name"?
>
> Also, is this meant to be a minimum standard (i.e., RDS must, at a 
> minimum, support the life-cycle of a domain name), to which other 
> elements can be added?
>
> Or is this meant to be a limiting standard (i.e., RDS must not do more 
> than support the life-cycle of a domain name), to which other elements 
> can be added only if they fit within the "life-cycle of a domain 
> name"?
>
> Or is this meant to be a "primary purpose" standard, where other 
> elements can be added, but they would not be considered a "primary 
> purpose" (which has a significant downstream effect, e.g., in certain 
> privacy legislation)?
>
> Finally, I would ask which of the use cases that we have on our list 
> fall within "the life-cycle of a domain name" and which do not? (I 
> suppose this last question is intertwined with my first question 
> above.
>
> Depending on what other participants believe the answers to these 
> questions should be, and what their effect may be, I may have 
> significant concerns about this statement.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck < cgomes at verisign.com > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> In our call earlier this week there seemed to be support for one 
> element of a RDS Statement of Purpose as suggested by Jim Galvin: 
> “The RDS should support the life cycle of a domain name.” No one 
> on the call disagreed with this; if anyone not on the call has 
> comments on this please communicate so on this list prior to our call 
> next week. Also, if any one who was on the call has comments that you 
> did not share, please do so before next week’s meeting.
>
>
>
> Also, it would be helpful if everyone could be thinking about answers 
> to the following questions:
>
> · What are the criteria for a statement of purpose?
>
> · What elements, if any, from the EWG statement of purpose should be 
> reflected in the statement of purpose?
>
> · What other elements need to be reflected in the statement of 
> purpose?
>
> We plan to discuss these questions in next week’s meeting but 
> comments would be appreciated on the list before then.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> Here’s the EWG statement of purpose that we discussed in our meeting 
> earlier this week:
>
>
>
> To help guide the EWG in its deliberations, the group developed a 
> high-level statement of purpose from which to test its conclusions and 
> recommendations, as follows:
>
> In support of ICANN’s mission to coordinate the global Internet’s 
> system of unique identifiers, and to ensure the stable and secure 
> operation of the Internet’s unique identifier system, information 
> about gTLD domain names is necessary to promote trust and confidence 
> in the Internet for all stakeholders.
>
> Accordingly, it is desirable to design a system to support domain name 
> registration and maintenance which:
>
> · Provides appropriate access to accurate, reliable, and uniform 
> registration data
>
> · Protects the privacy of personal information
>
> · Enables a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and 
> maintaining the ability to contact Registrants
>
> · Supports a framework to address issues involving Registrants, 
> including but not limited to: consumer protection, investigation of 
> cybercrime, and intellectual property protection
>
> · Provides an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement 
> needs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg