[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration data

Fri Apr 28 16:53:47 UTC 2017

Check,

First thank you.

Second, to suggest:

1. Could we have a scribe that monitors the list and categorizes the emails
into larger budgets with the idea that ideas getting sufficient traction are
to be added as an agenda item for discussion during a call  and purposely
not left for attempted resolution via email.  Selection of items for the
agenda could be via some sort of straw poll or simply selected by the scribe
and added with things being removed by consensus during the call.  We could
spend 10 mins during each call managing what is or is not added.

Otherwise there is no way I can keep up.  By rough count there were over 700
emails from this WG alone this week.  I simply cannot believe such a level
will result in any meaningful decisions.

Regards,

Paul

From:  "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date:  Friday, April 28, 2017 at 4:47 PM
To:  Paul Keating <paul at law.es>, "sam at lanfranco.net" <sam at lanfranco.net>
Cc:  "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association
resolution regarding domain registration data

> I am making a unilateral decision as chair (without consultation with the
> Leadership Team) to temporarily halt the list discussion.  This has nothing to
> do with the messages below or anything anyone has said over the last couple of
> days so no one should take it personal.
>  
> PLEASE STOP POSTING MESSAGES EXCEPT TO RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE FROM ME. My
> explanation follows.
>  
> It is my opinion that the volume of messages we have had yesterday and
> continuing today is unsustainable in the short term and more importantly in
> the long term. As a regular practice, I try to review all messages on the list
> and I know that I cannot succeed at doing that in the short or long term if
> the volume is at the level we have experienced yesterday and today without
> spending near full time.  I have other responsibilities so I cannot devote
> 100% of my time monitoring and responding to messages on our WG list.  And I
> am sure that the rest of you are no different than me.
>  
> On a personal note, I tried to take most of the day off yesterday (Thursday)
> and was off-line most of the day except for my phone.  When I had very brief
> opportunities, I tried to monitor the list but barely made a dent in it.  I
> share this to let you know that I am presently way behind in reviewing all the
> WG messages and I want everyone to understand that with regard to what I am
> saying in this message.  I will do my best to catch up today.
>  
> More important than the sustainability of the message volume, I do not believe
> that the extensive discussion that has been happening the last 36 hours or so
> is an effective way for us to debate the issues in front of us.  In saying
> that I do not intend to minimize anything that has been said.  In the small
> portion of messages that I have read, I have seen a lot of very good points as
> well as a lot of valid differences of opinion and issues that we will have to
> explore in more depth.
>  
> I believe that we need to come up with a method of deliberating on the issues
> that is manageable for all of us. I do not know what that is yet but will
> initiate discussion with the Leadership Team today and with the full WG in the
> days ahead.  One thing I do believe is that we will likely have to narrow our
> discussion points at any given time and require members to stay focused on
> those points.  I realize that that is hard to do because of the
> interdependency of issues so we need to figure out how we can do that and
> still have productive discussion.
>  
> If any of you have ideas regarding how we can manage list discussion as well
> as meeting discussions in a more effective manner, please feel free to share
> them.
>  
> Please understand that my HALT on issues list discussion is TEMPORARY. We will
> resume list discussion in a few days because it is a critical part of our
> process.
>  
> In the meantime, please have a good weekend.
>  
> Chuck
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:18 AM
> To: Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>
> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement
> association resolution regarding domain registration data
>  
> 
> +45637281. 
> 
>  
> 
> Let's get back to the program pls.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Paul Keating, Esq.
> 
> 
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 4:13 PM, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Another stupid question:
>> 
>> Not targeting Michele here, but in general isn't much of this getting way
>> outside ICANN's remit,
>> and hence outside the ring-fence that circumscribes what we are supposed to
>> be doing here?
>> 
>> Sam L.
>> 
>> On 4/28/2017 9:00 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>>> He¹s saying two things:
>>> 1  non-EU registrars should give up selling into the EU
>>> 2  EU registrars should stop selling outside the EU
>>>  
>>> Of course there¹s a multitude of issues with this proposal, but at least
>>> it¹s an actual fairly concrete ³idea² or ³strawman²
>>>  
>>    <etc. deleted>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170428/285636d4/attachment.html>