[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date

Fri Sep 22 11:39:34 UTC 2017

I fully agree…. at times we just go in circles for things already discussed and agreed upon. OK i understand the consensus. So far we’ve moved just a little bit. In some cases when i hear the discussions it seems that we are really wasting time. At the rate we are moving it may take another ten years to agree on anything. Ok some have responsibilities to their company but sometimes i would like people to think how they would have wanted to be treated themselves. 

Privacy under any law is a choice but demands some additional work which i think can be resolved as much as taking down everything. At times i listen to the conversations online and exchanges i tell myself aren’t we just losing our time ?  If we have to go back so many steps to step up one bit then its a waste of time for all. Sorry for being honest. i may be talking for the minority but perhaps for the majority as well. If i take it as a casual observer i would say what a wastage of time and resources. 

People don’t listen to the recordings and out of a wake up call start over and we waste precious time over and over and over again. Nearly six years i watched ICANN and its staff are looking at groups and subgroups to finalise so they can move onward. However, bottom up process we wage and adhere to we need to make practical decisions. 

In this particular case EWG did their work and looked at things perhaps in varied ways. IN between all the discussions we need to acknowledge abuse, darkweb and so many more ongoing. People look up and say why can’t law enforcement at times do their work. As a way of looking at all the discussions we have sometimes i even fall asleep or continue doing important things to me. We will never ever have agreements per say but there is always a middle ground. It’s not a war. Unfortunately i find this same problem in many WT. Some manage to move some will never ever even move as we end up like so so so slow in making things right. We all have a responsibility to people on the ground people using the internet. What we decide today affects everyone in the world. 

Pragmatism is not complicated and finding in between  technical solutions is not a big problem yet we never seem to work on anything. I may not like “DonaldTrump” but time and again at his last speech at UN there are  things i’ve had to say needed reflection. We need process but it also creates sometimes what i usually call a dead end to the pragmatic approach. In fact the one who decided to streamline process is the new SG of the UN. Not trump per say. 

People we need to look at the reality.If something said or decided seems impossible does it mean it cannot be devised. If so then we would still be ridding and using horses to work today.

I can go on ranting and ranting….but i like solutions to problems that just complaining middle grounds is important to two sides or even more less this WT will be in the dark ages by the time things change.

Sorry to all but as much as i spend time being a Professor i also look at institutions and people. All of you can really make up their mind to what they want to associate me with. The problem will never go away till we really make some real sense of everything. The same happens with ccTLDs some are held privately it is also a fact and not helping their countries per say. So many issues that comes to GNSO for policy addressing. And we strike ourselves and we will always wonder …………………………………………….

Kris

> On Sep 22, 2017, at 15:08, Erica Varlese <erica at my.blog> wrote:
> 
> +1 (or +2 perhaps at this point :) )
> 
> It seems to me that this is a case where it's potentially helpful data (moreso in edge cases), but not a clear cut need to manage the domain. In the long run, both in terms of implementation (and being able to implement well) and privacy laws down the line, I agree with Alex that our time would be better spent elsewhere. 
> 
> Erica Varlese | .blog Shepherd @ KKWT
> Email: erica at my.blog
> Skype: evarlese
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org <mailto:Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org>> wrote:
> Thanks to the drafting team for their work on this topic. 
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with the conclusion that the “original registration date” need not be included or supported by the RDS. 
> 
>  
> 
> As for the proposed concept of a “counter” I’m not convinced this is needed, necessary or even helpful.  While I wouldn’t object to such an element I would suggest we spend our time debating more important (and useful) matters. 
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alex
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 1:07 PM
> To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Working Group Members,
> 
>  
> 
> In follow-up to an action item from the 29 August WG call in which the 22 August poll results <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FgTLDRDS%2F2017-08-29%2BNext%2BGen%2BRDS%2BPDP%2BWorking%2BGroup%3Fpreview%3D%2F66086750%2F69279984%2FSummaryResults-Poll-from-22AugustCall.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Calex_deacon%40mpaa.org%7C61173ffaf6d940b83ef108d50063283b%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C1%7C636415348229952185&sdata=2kdhyhbjISFs7r4M4PJvBWzQRgdDl%2F6ecFQdMkJgivU%3D&reserved=0> were discussed, a drafting team was formed to assist with proposing an alternative WG agreement regarding “Original Registration Date” to help the WG discuss and reach rough consensus with respect to this data element.
> 
>  
> 
> On today’s WG call, a proposed agreement on the data element regarding Original Registration Date was presented by one of the members (Andrew Sullivan) of the drafting team that had been deliberating on it. In follow-up to the action item from today’s call: “Staff to distribute drafting team output on Original Registration Date to WG mailing list; all WG members invited to review and comment”, all WG members are now invited to review and comment on the drafting team’s proposal.
> 
>  
> 
> The proposal, as well as the recording of today’s call, were posted on today’s meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/ZGfwAw <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FZGfwAw&data=02%7C01%7Calex_deacon%40mpaa.org%7C61173ffaf6d940b83ef108d50063283b%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636415348229952185&sdata=YmC8Kihh5tbNy41NW%2Blyli%2B%2B9t23DWOanmLxp0YdSvo%3D&reserved=0>
>  
> 
> Direct links to the proposal in MS Word <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FgTLDRDS%2F2017-09-20%2BNext%2BGen%2BRDS%2BPDP%2BWorking%2BGroup%3Fpreview%3D%2F66086756%2F69284003%2FVolunteer%2520Team%2520on%2520Action%2520Item%2520regarding%2520Original%2520Registration%2520Date%2520-%252018%2520Sep%2520Update.docx&data=02%7C01%7Calex_deacon%40mpaa.org%7C61173ffaf6d940b83ef108d50063283b%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C1%7C636415348229952185&sdata=GDtJDjNQF7zjuh6PVMa8Cr5jvSqilrzonbCHyRKsY5s%3D&reserved=0> and pdf <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FgTLDRDS%2F2017-09-20%2BNext%2BGen%2BRDS%2BPDP%2BWorking%2BGroup%3Fpreview%3D%2F66086756%2F69284004%2FVolunteer%2520Team%2520on%2520Action%2520Item%2520regarding%2520Original%2520Registration%2520Date%2520-%252018%2520Sep%2520Update.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Calex_deacon%40mpaa.org%7C61173ffaf6d940b83ef108d50063283b%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C1%7C636415348229952185&sdata=ssYPhkik78LXQYrub9%2F1td3xCM4ad2SvMFD8OZ3nNDU%3D&reserved=0> formats are also available.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>  
> 
> Amr
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <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

Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170922/13996914/attachment.html>