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

Mon May 2 16:17:55 UTC 2016

Hi Milton,
of course I forgive you. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to help shed some light on my thinking.

Firstly, Andrew asked about the relationship between RTs and PDP in general and Steve mentioned whois /RDS as a an example. Hence, I read this a being a general question and Steve’s response to be general and not just focused the whois / RDS issue.

More info below...

> Am 29.04.2016 um 18:08 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> Forgive me but I have no idea what you are agreeing with here. Steve’s statement contains a number of internal contradictions so I can’t tell.
> 
> Are you agreeing with this:
> 
> “I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment.”
> 

I do agree that we need a more co-ordinated approach to reviews and PDP work. To give another example: If you take the whole RPM topic (UDRP, IGO-INGO etc), it clearly shows that different processes on related or interlinking issues are under way and that take resources. I do see room for improvement on this, which would also lead to less burden for the community, reduce the risk of duplicate efforts and increase chances of more timely solutions (which is more rewarding for volunteers, too).

> Or this:
> 
> “I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach.”
> 
> Since a PDP always involves a review of existing policy and does not necessarily change  existing policy, I don’t understand why this would not be duplication.

I think Avri described the different quite nicely, so please insert Avi’s mail here...

> 
> Or do you agree with this factually incorrect statement:
> 
> “In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation.”
> 
> Incorrect because the Whois reviews start from the premise that current policy is correct and should not be changed and all we need to do is review its effectiveness?

As mentioned before, I understood the question to be of general nature. Reviews take a fresh look at the present situation and come up, if any, with suggestions where improvements shall be made or things need to be updated to match current requirements.

I hope this answers your questions.

Best,
Thomas

> 
> 
>   <>
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:10 AM
> To: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com <mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>>
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
> 
> I do agree, Steve.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> ---
> rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
> 
> 
> Am 28.04.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com <mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>>:
> 
> 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.  I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment.  We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach.  In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation.  In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy.  Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how
> those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we
> think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is
> going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP
> can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
> 
> It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular
> RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way)
> without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple,
> potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
> 
> Have I missed something?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>_______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160502/40b821d6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160502/40b821d6/signature-0001.asc>