[RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff] [Ext] RE: Plenary call #6 Action Items

Jean-Baptiste Deroulez jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org
Wed Sep 6 11:13:35 UTC 2017 

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your input, I have updated the list of decisions reached and action items accordingly. Thank you for confirming the below can be shared with the review team.

Decisions reached:


  *   On scope as per the Bylaws section 4.6.e.ii: Review Team agreed to treat separately:
     *   the effectiveness of the now current gTLD registry directory service and
     *   whether its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.
The team also agreed that it may be useful to draw on the first WHOIS Review Team Scope of Work discussions for guidance on further defining the criterion of effectiveness.

  *   On Scope: On OECD, Review Team will conduct: simple review noting that there are issues and pointing at other groups which have more in-depth on the issue, and may consider recommending that it be dropped or replaced for future reviews.
  *   On scope - Review Team won't be addressing GNSO suggestion "Assess how RDS current & future recommendations might be improved and better coordinated".
  *   On scope - Compliance is within scope, and Review Team will take a look at it deeper.
  *   On scope - Review will evaluate whether RDAP should be implemented before policy is developed. Initial evaluation is that no benefit in implementing now.
  *   On scope - Carlton's issue on suitability of current protocol for current purposes: Initial evaluation is that it is not, if only that it only supports 7-bit-ASCII. This issue is a low effort one and will be included in the review, the wording will be refined slightly.
  *   On scope: IDN (suggested by Carlton & Dmitry) - whether IDN is considered suitable, IDN is the simplest example of why the current protocol does not work. This issue is considered in scope but with minimal effort on it.
  *   On timeline (cf Fact Sheet): agreement to publicize 12-month timeframe.

Action items:


  *   ToR:

  *   On removal/replacement of Team Members, include following edits: new member instead of replacement, 70 % for both thresholds, refuses instead of fails.
  *   On Dependencies section: - add GDPR, - add text "ICANN org to update list and alert RDS-WHOIS2 of any changes to the list"


  *   Scope

  *   On Scope: Row 2: Stephanie to propose definition of effectiveness


  *   Fact Sheet

  *   Address fact sheet question on how sections percentages are defined.


  *   Briefings

  *   Share schedule of briefings - this will inform decision whether to hold Sept 28th meeting or not.


Kind regards,

Jean-Baptiste

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:58 PM
To: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org>, "Cathrin.BAUER-BULST at ec.europa.eu" <Cathrin.BAUER-BULST at ec.europa.eu>, "rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff at icann.org" <rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff] [Ext] RE: Plenary call #6 Action Items

See my comments embedded. Alan

At 01/09/2017 09:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez wrote:


Thank you Cathrin, I will update the below action items accordingly.

With regards to “Carlton’s issue”, this is in reference to the response to the GNSO proposal for limited scope and the area of focus “Assess the value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol” where Carlton proposed to “assess current protocol for current purposes”.

Kind regards,

Jean-Baptiste

From: "Cathrin.BAUER-BULST at ec.europa.eu" <Cathrin.BAUER-BULST at ec.europa.eu>
Date: Friday, September 1, 2017 at 2:14 PM
To: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org>, "rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff at icann.org" <rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: Plenary call #6 Action Items

Dear Jean-Baptiste,

Many thanks, two quick comments:

On the first bullet: I think for clarity's sake it could be changed to read:

  *   On scope as per the Bylaws section 4.6.e.ii: Review Team agreed to treat separately

     *   the effectiveness of the now current gTLD registry directory service and
     *   whether its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.

Fine.


The team also agreed that it may be useful to draw on the first WHOIS Review Team Scope of Work discussions for guidance on further defining the criterion of effectiveness.

Fine.



On the "Carlton's issue" bullet: could you make that one a bit clearer? A few days from now everyone will have forgotten what this refers to, and I have to admit I'm already struggling.

I will try.



Thanks
Cathrin

Cathrin Bauer-Bulst
Deputy Head of Unit
Cybercrime

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D32711.F187C310]
European Commission
DG Migration and Home Affairs
Unit D4 - Cybercrime

What we do: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/cybercrime/index_en.htm[ec.europa.eu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_dgs_home-2Daffairs_what-2Dwe-2Ddo_policies_organized-2Dcrime-2Dand-2Dhuman-2Dtrafficking_cybercrime_index-5Fen.htm&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=a5VfrQZP4r0Kte2xBJT17IgRyRBHECC3vHSuFP_QBqD22G4dgkHhRZBEhshbjycD&m=ayaurt8U0RUHOAfT93atQzl26cdoav8oBjoaUumChDA&s=7Md6rcPI4-qPrwqsAPtL7lbAOeY37mG3D7I3BAlEdDs&e=>

The views expressed in this e-mail are my own and may not be interpreted
as stating an official position of the European Commission.

From: rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Baptiste Deroulez
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 2:03 PM
To: rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff at icann.org
Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff] Plenary call #6 Action Items

Dear Alan, Dear Cathrin,

Can you please confirm the below identified decisions reached and action items can be shared with the review team?

Decisions reached:

·         On scope 4.6.e.ii: Review Team will treat all three separately.
·         On Scope: On OECD, Review Team will conduct: simple review noting that there are issues and pointing at other groups which have more in-depth on the issue, and may consider recommending that it be dropped or replaced for future reviews.
·         On scope - Review Team won't be addressing GNSO suggestion "Assess how RDS current & future recommendations might be improved and better coordinated".
·         On scope - Review will evaluate whether RDAP should be implemented before policy is developed.

(Add: Initial evaluation is that no benefit in implementing now.


·         On scope - Compliance is within scope, and Review Team will take a look at it deeper.
·         On scope: Carlton's issue is suitable, a low effort one and will be included in the review, the wording will be refined slightly.

How About: On scope: Carlton's issue on suitability of current protocol for current purposes: Initial evaluation is that it is not, if only that it only supports 7-bit-ASCII.


·         On scope: IDN: Within Scope, with minimal effort on it.

Add: (This needs more description - IDN in what respect?  Do we mean IDN or use of multiple scripts?


·         On timeline (cf Fact Sheet): agreement to publicize 12-month timeframe.

Action items:

ToR:
·         On removal/replacement of Team Members, include following edits: new member instead of replacement, 70 % for both thresholds, refuses instead of fails.
·         On Dependencies section: - add GDPR, - add text "ICANN org to update list and alert RDS-WHOIS2 of any changes to the list"

·         Scope
·         On Scope: Row 2: Stephanie to provide definition of effectiveness

Stephanie to propose definition of effectiveness.



·         Fact Sheet
·         Address fact sheet question on how sections percentages are defined.

·         Briefings
·         Share schedule of briefings - this will inform decision whether to hold Sept 28th meeting or not.

Many thanks in advance

Kind regards,

Jean-Baptiste
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png"
Content-Description: image001.png
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6390;
         creation-date="Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:02:59 GMT";
         modification-date="Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:02:59 GMT"
Content-ID: <image001.png at 01D32333.652BF440>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
         1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:rgn8Ix6JXjjWcBjnNbkVDhwPXm8wUVu8lyGS8GvqpJQLRFlu7hUD9/50eJPggpm/IoYgtQWgJygI84zFXtzS3TgicncpmwJUGsfnP7Nit+jx5jV+9GOfnTyh1Uj3wxOX
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
         ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
         1;MWHPR03MB2718;27:rgn8Ix6JXjjWcBjnNbkVDhwPXm8wUVu8lyGS8GvqpJQLRFlu7hUD9/50eJPggpm/IoYgtQWgJygI84zFXtzS3TgicncpmwJUGsfnP7Nit+jx5jV+9GOfnTyh1Uj3wxOX
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
         ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);

_______________________________________________
RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff mailing list
RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff/attachments/20170906/a00ea030/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4542 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff/attachments/20170906/a00ea030/image001-0001.jpg>

More information about the RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff mailing list