<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">Greetings All,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am unlikely to make the meeting later today because of ccTLD commitments. I have a couple of comments on Alan’s note below from a Board perspective.<br class=""><div class="">
<p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; font-family: Helvetica; min-height: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class=""></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal; font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(148, 67, 251); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Cheers,</p><p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal; font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(148, 67, 251); min-height: 16px; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br class=""></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal; font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(148, 67, 251); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Chris</p>
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 26 Jun 2017, at 22:00, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" class="">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<div class="">
In preparation for the meeting tomorrow, I would like to explain why I
feel that we should limit our scope to an in depth review of the first
WHOIS-RT recommendations and their implementation. This is specifically
called for in section (iv) of the Bylaw governing this review: <i class="">The
Directory Service Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior
Directory Service Review recommendations have been implemented and the
extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in
the intended effect.<br class=""><br class="">
</i>As the first phase of this, MSSI should, with the support of the
appropriate ICANN departments, prepare a full assessment of the WHOIS_RT
Recommendations and their implementation, and do so prior to our first
formal face-to-face meeting.<br class=""><br class="">
Any future replacement for WHOIS is being discussed in the GNSO
Next-Generation RDS PDP and is clearly our of scope. Privacy issues with
the current WHOIS are clearly an issue, but I do not believe that this RT
is the proper place to design any "fix" to meet GDPR issues, n
ot would our time-frame meet requirements to act in the next several
months.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I tend to agree. </div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">
The GNSO has suggested nine focus areas that we should look at, and I
would like to review them here.<br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">1. Assess
whether the RDS efforts currently underway in the ICANN community are on
target to meet the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting
consumer trust and safeguarding registrant
data.</font></blockquote><br class="">
The prime RDS effort is the GNSO PDP. Given that the PDP is not at a
stage to make any recommendations, I do see how we could assess its
outcomes. If indeed it is thought to be in trouble, it is the sole
responsibility of the GNSO to take action. A RT recommendation to the
Board cannot do that.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Alan is correct. The Board would have no power to implement any such recommendation from the RT.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">2. Assess
the RDS efforts currently underway (or planned in the near term), for the
purpose of making recommendations regarding how they might be improved
and better coordinated.</font></blockquote><br class="">
Again, I do not know what crystal ball we have to do this.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Again, the Board would have no power to implement such recommendations in respect to the GNSO PDP.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">3. Ongoing
work by the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
Implementation Review Team (see Recommendation 10 of the 2012 WHOIS
Review Team Final Report).</font></blockquote><br class="">
To the extent that this is an aspect of a previous WHOIS-RT
recommendation, it falls within the purview of the review of the last
RT's work<br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">4.
Progress of cross validation implementation (see Recommendations 6 and 7,
2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).</font></blockquote><br class="">
Same here.<br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">5. Review
compliance enforcement actions, structure and processes (see
Recommendation 4, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final
Report).</font></blockquote><br class="">
Same here.<br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">6.
Availability of transparent data concerning enforcement of contractual
obligations of WHOIS.</font></blockquote><br class="">
I am not sure exactly what this means, but it may well fall within the
reasonable purview of this RT. <br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">7. Assess
the value and timing of RDAP as a replacement
protocol.</font></blockquote><br class="">
Although RDAP, or an evolution of it, is a likely choice for implementing
a future RDS, I do not see how we can assess the value of RDAP without
having the specific requirements for that RDS. In terms of timing, if the
current RDAP ends up being sufficient, timing is not an issue, and if it
required enhancement, the timing is not something that we are really
equipped to predict.<br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">8. To the
extent time and bandwidth permit, evaluate the effectiveness of any other
steps ICANN has taken to implement Recommendations 3-11 of the 2012 WHOIS
Review Team Final Report.</font></blockquote><br class="">
Agreed.<br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">9. Ensure
no duplication of work that is the responsibility of the GNSOs RDS
Policy Development Process Working Group.</font></blockquote><br class="">
Agreed.<br class=""><br class="">
Alan<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org" class="">RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org</a><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></span></body></html>