[CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:55:06AM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
> Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review.

Ok (and I find I agree with your argument about the starting point of
RT vs. PDP).

I believe quite strongly that we must follow the proposal closely, and
with the above conclusion it seems likely that an RT is going to be
needed for RDS as soon as the new bylaws come into effect.  Given the
ongoing PDP, that seems unfortunate, but it might just be a
consequence that we have to accept given the state we're in (and the
dictates of the calendar).  I do _not_ think it would be ok to vary
too much from what we think the report says.  If we can't plausibly
come up with a way in which a PDP can substitute for an RT, it's far
from obvious to me that we can do anything here.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com