<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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?" <i>not</i> "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?"</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The 3 phase process in the Charter makes this clear:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default">Accordingly, the GNSO Council is proceeding with the Board-requested PDP, using the Framework’s 3-phase process to </div><div class="gmail_default">(1) establish gTLD registration data requirements to determine if and why a next-generation RDS is needed, </div><div class="gmail_default">(2) design policies that detail functions that must be provided by a next-generation RDS to support those requirements, and </div><div class="gmail_default">(3) provide guidance for how a next-generation RDS should implement those policies, coexisting with and eventually replacing WHOIS.</div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default">Greg</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Sam Lanfranco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net" target="_blank">sam@lanfranco.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Steve,<br>
<br>
More than happy to grant you your point. <br>
<br>
My only additional observation is that there is the "we" - the
multistakeholder community we know and love.<br>
But there is also a "they", the national and regional policy making
bodies that will think, and act, as though they, <br>
within their own jurisdictions, are responsible for dealing with
many of these data issues.<br>
<br>
The stakeholder constituencies have to be even more active at those
levels than they are within ICANN,<br>
if the "we" wishes to protect what it feels should be protected
(access/privacy) in this data space. <br>
<br>
Those national/regional authorities have more binding policy powers
than are found within ICANN. <br>
They can overrule ICANN, within their jurisdictions, but ICANN
cannot overrule them from within its remit. <br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
Sam <br></font></span><span class="">
<br>
<br>
<div>On 5/11/2016 12:04 PM, Metalitz, Steven
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.”
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">To
answer that question we first need to decide who is “we”. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Steve
Metalitz
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>