[RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Late markup

[Stephanie Perrin]

I understand your point of view Lili.  I hope you understand mine.  Reviewing this historical artefact at the present time is indeed very frustrating and difficult, particularly if one is also on the EPDP.

cheers Stephanie

On 2019-03-04 04:53, SUN Lili wrote:
Hi Stephanie,

I think all the arguments among this review team has been rooted in the different understanding and needs of WHOIS. However, it’s not appropriate to have the established set of attitudes towards WHOIS during the review in my opinion. The Review Team has explicitly outlined ToR and scope. Our work should adhere to the ToR, make assessment based on the facts, and generate recommendations accordingly. Whether the WHOIS should exist or not is beyond the scope of this review. The beautiful part of the multi-stakeholder model and consensus policy is to give you a chance to learn other’s concerns, but the negative part is the high price and long process to reach consensus, and the result makes no one happy in the end. I was frustrated as well after the involvement in this review team, but that’s the way it works.

Just to share my mind with you.

Regards,
Lili

From: RDS-WHOIS2-RT [mailto:rds-whois2-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Monday, 4 March, 2019 1:53 PM
To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt at icann.org><mailto:rds-whois2-rt at icann.org>
Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Late markup


Attached is my markup of the document.  Overall, this document is impressive in its scope and research.  Basically, I think many of our recommendations are sensible.  However, the bias towards disclosure of information, the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS practices already violated data protection law during the time of the past review are discouraging.  Not to mention the fact that the birth of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years telling us how to fix it.   The push to continue doing what we have done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging.  I realize we had to review the recommendations of the previous Review team.  We live in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our review is not there.

Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs.  I do not want to resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this process and final result.  I do appreciate that I am a minority view and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections throughout the process.

Stephanie Perrin

Chair, NCSG


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt/attachments/20190304/d7a9f808/attachment.html>