[RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Public Comment on Short Term Options

[Carlton Samuels]

Seems to me all the major points raised on the call and message we wish to
convey are covered.

Carlton

On Mon, 28 May 2018, 9:43 pm Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> During today's plenary call, the RT decided to accept Theresa
> Swineheart's offer and request that the RDS-WHOIS2 Review be removed
> from the Public Comment on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline
> for Specific Reviews. Although I am not sure that the decision can be
> viewed as consensus using the rule-of-thumb of 80%, it was definitely
> a majority decision.
>
> The group did consider the issue raised by Chris. Specifically to
> what extent would we be viewed in a bad light for cutting off comment
> on our work. There was a strong belief that we are doing this for
> good reasons and that presuming the team members go back to our home
> constituencies and explain what we are doing, in balance, this is the
> right decision.
>
> This is not in final form, but and identification of the major points
> to get review team closure. I am not looking for word-smithing but
> rather any issues misstated of missing.
>
> I would like to have a draft ready by Wednesday, so please review
> this as soon as possible.
>
> -----------
>
> Letter sent to Theresa Swineheart on beheld of the RDS-WHOIS2-RT and
> also posted to the Public Comment.
>
> The rationale that we will use to make this request is based on our
> belief that once a number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations are
> corrected, there is little to be gained at this point from altering
> the scope or pausing the review.
>
> There are some review team members and others in the community who
> believed that this review should have been deferred, or its scope
> restricted to just a review of the first WHOIS RT's Recommendations.
> That was thoroughly discussed prior to the review and during the
> scoping phase. Ultimately, it was decided that the review must
> continue and should not be restricted. That was many months ago and
> we cannot turn back the clock but must look at today's situation, and
> where we will be when the Public Comment (PC) completes in July.
>
> = The Review Terms of Reference (ToR) does state that due to GDPR, we
> MAY defer some aspects of the review which we did not believe would
> substantially alter our completion target. In fact, we have not
> deferred anything at this point and now believe that GDPR will have a
> significant impact on our work. The full implementation of GDPR may
> or may not be understood by the time we deliver our report, but we
> will certainly understand the overall direction and that will be a
> factor in our report. It is clear that the real impact will not be
> well understood by then nor even a few months later, so the analysis
> of that will have to wait for a subsequent review.
>
> = The document implies that because there are only ten RT members,
> there are insufficient people to do the work. In fact there are just
> ten members, but all are working together and the number of active
> workers may well exceed the number of active workers on previous larger
> teams.
>
> = The PC document says that $460k will be saved in FY19 by
> restricting the scope of the review and that $590k will be saved by
> pausing the review. The review team has not been involved in
> estimating any of these budgets and does not believe that they are
> accurate.
>
>    [Financial Analysis here]
>
> = The public comment is due to close on 06 July 2018 with the staff
> report due on 23 Jul7 2018. According to the current Review Team work
> plan, the Review Team is scheduled to have a face to face meeting
> 19-20 July 2018. Our intent is that we finalize the content of our
> draft report at that time. Moreover, unlike some draft reports which
> are comprised of many questions to the community, we believe that
> this will really be a draft report looking for community comment
> before finalizing it. It makes little sense for the group to reduce
> its scope or completely pause just at the point when it is ready to
> deliver its draft report. By that time, the bulk of the work will
> have been done, and to scrap part of it or pause for a year implies
> much of that work will have to largely be repeated again later. The
> RT specifically notes that Option C, to have the Review paused in
> April (a date that had long past when the PC was issued) made no
> sense whatsoever given that the community input to make that decision
> would only be available in late July.
>
> The Review Team believes that if it had been consulted when this
> Public Comment was being contemplated and developed, the RDS-WHOIS2
> Review would never have been included. Moreover, the Review Team
> strongly believes that if a RT is to be held accountable for keeping
> to its "budget" (as is the current practice), the RT MUST be involved
> in developing that overall budget and the annual FY budgets that it
> must operationally adhere to.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt/attachments/20180529/d20af5e3/attachment.html>