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

[Edward Morris]

Thanks Bruce.

This goes both ways as well. In setting out charters and scoping documents for working groups we need to pay more attention to upcoming Reviews, modify accordingly and, where possible, design things so input can be received from the Review process.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 11:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
>>> Although we need to start the review process right away, we do have some latitude with respect to its scope.  Bruce Tonkin has suggested for future reviews, presumably all of them, not just the directory services review, that we move toward asking a more specific questions to provide focus and to limit the amount of time and energy required to conduct these reviews.
> 
> A good starting point - would be to quickly identify  what has been changed since the last review - e.g introduction of email address verification in the domain name registration process - and then measure the outcomes of that change. 
> 
> There is little point in reviewing the whole WHOIS system again and deciding it needs to change - when there is a PDP underway to come up with a new system.  The most useful thing to do is identify the changes that have been made, and see if those changes are actually helping.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community