<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">....ah, there's the rub. Get thee behind me, you heretic! </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">ICANN has consistently......and even vehemently......insisted it is not a regulator! </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">Forks a market, nay an ecosystem. Gives, bequeaths, instructs and affirms. But nooooooooo.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><br>==============================<br>Carlton A Samuels<br>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br><i><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i><br>=============================</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Michael D. Palage <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michael@palage.com" target="_blank">michael@palage.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Klaus,<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, if a Registry wants to collect addition data and display it.<br>
It needs ICANN permission since Specification 4 states what can be displayed<br>
and in what format. So when .NYC, .CAPETOWN, .JOBURG and .DURBAN wanted to<br>
add their additional fields for business purposes. They first needed to<br>
submit an RSEP and then get permission from ICANN to modify their Registry<br>
Agreement. The way the Registry Agreement has been written and how ICANN has<br>
interpreted "registry services" it gives ICANN incredible latitude to act as<br>
a regulator instead of a mere technical coordinating body.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Michael<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Klaus Stoll<br>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 2:55 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Back to basics<br>
<br>
Dear WG<br>
<br>
Thank you for a fascinating ongoing discussion.<br>
<br>
I wonder if in the context of data collection a back to basics approach<br>
would be helpful: Only the data that is absolutely necessary to operate the<br>
DNS in a stable and secure manner should be collected. Everything else is<br>
out of the remit of ICANN. Additional data can be collected independently of<br>
ICANN but only based on consent between registrars and registrants.<br>
<br>
I know this approach is naive, but it might serve as a base line.<br>
<br>
Yours<br>
<br>
Klaus<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>
<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>