[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report

Javier Rua javrua at gmail.com
Fri Feb 15 22:43:10 UTC 2019

+1.  Statement Ok.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:56 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>

> Perhaps the opinion of the ALAC/CPWG will change on today's call!
> Alan
> --
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> On February 15, 2019 9:48:49 AM EST, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hello Alan,
>> Am fine with the statement moving forward I just feel it doesn't read
>> well that we outrightly do not accept certain yet accept the package
>> Cheers!
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 15:42 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks Seun.
>>> Note that Rec #6 does allow you to specify that your contact information
>>> be disdplayed (on the registrar site only!) but no timeline when they must
>>> provide this option.
>>> If you are in general supporting the issuing of the statement, it would
>>> be helpful to put that on the record (no obligation obviously though!).
>>> On not accepting the report on the whole, this was debated on the last
>>> CPWG call and the consensus (but not unanimous) was that we not do that.
>>> Alan
>>> At 15/02/2019 04:59 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>> Hello Alan,
>>> Thanks for sharing this which is good. A few minor editorials and
>>> comment:
>>> 1. "“that it would be difficult to argue that *that* processing to
>>> prevent DNS...."
>>> 2 "...Phase 2 will *be* address the deferred issues as..."
>>> 3. I am not sure why we say "we do not accept" certain issues yet we
>>> seem to end our statement by accepting the report. Since/if we have
>>> red-lines then we should clearly not accept the report as a whole. However
>>> if we can live with the report as indicated in the last paragraph then I
>>> suggest we modify the following:
>>> "To be specific, the results which we cannot accept are:...." So it
>>> doesn't contradict the acceptance stated in the last paragraph.
>>> That said, I agree with Gorge, that the element of choice/consent is
>>> being taken away from registrants in terms of what they want to provide and
>>> publish.
>>> It's election period in my country, my apologies as I won't be present
>>> at upcoming cpwg call
>>> Regards
>>> Sent from my mobile
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 01:28 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>>> wrote: As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find
>>> the draft statement to be attached to the report.
>>> I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which
>>> there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report,
>>> but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our
>>> support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
>>> The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether
>>> Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
>>> comments with utmost urgency.
>>> Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call
>>> tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
>>> WORD and PDF formats are attached.
>>> Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list
>>> CPWG at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________
>>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>>> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190215/e538996d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org

More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list