[council] RDS Scope Guidance

[James M. Bladel]

Thank you Rafik & NCSG.

Marika & Team – can we get these noted, with attribution, in our RDS draft?

Thanks—

J.


From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 17:00
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] RDS Scope Guidance

Hi James,

please find here comments suggested from NCSG:


·  Whether RDS efforts meet the “legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.”
·  Whether RDS effort protect the legitimate rights of registrants - individuals, noncommercial organizations, small businesses and others, in their right to communicate political, personal, research, hobby and educational ideas with the privacy granted under national laws and consistent with the best free expression traditions of the world.

·  How RDS current & future recommendations might be improved and better coordinated for the benefit of all stakeholders.

·  Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues and Implementation
o    How was the balance achieved in this long and painstaking Working Group? (with over 10,000 comments)
o    Has implementation under the direction of ICANN Staff and a much smaller team of volunteers fulfilled (or not) the goals of the PPSAI Working Group

·  Compliance enforcement actions, structure, and processes
o    Where are the Due Process Protections for registrants?
o    Where is ICANN Compliance in ensuring that registrants know when their domain names are being investigated (e.g., ensuring that registrars contact registrants re: investigation in a timely manner and with information about how to respond, and if not ICANN handles this function)?
o    How does ICANN Compliance evaluate complaints for harassment and "bullshit factor" -- someone reporting something in the Whois record that does not impact the reliability of the data or the reachability of the registrant (e.g., a student not having a cell phone due to financial constraints, but otherwise COMPLETELY reachable by email, regular mail, etc.)?
o    How can a registrant appeal a takedown of his/her/its domain name by ICANN Compliance -- and even investigate the details (registrants are going in circles trying to understand how their domain names disappeared).
o    What steps can Compliance take to throw out abuse by those filing complaints?  How can Compliance let the community know these anti-abuse steps are being taken?

·  Availability of transparent enforcement of contractual obligations data

·  The value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol

·  The effectiveness of any other steps ICANN Org has taken to implement WHOIS Recommendations
·  How have changes in law, high level court decision, adoption of data protection laws worldwide, etc, changed the legal framework of Whois and RDS data since the original Whois Review Team Report and how does this impact ICANN's work going forward.
Best,

Rafik
2017-02-21 4:31 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>:
Councilors –

Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, which consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs on guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the upcoming RDS (WHOIS) review.  Time is tight, so if you have any comments or edits, please respond by 2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB.

Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be distributed to RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that they are still interested in serving on this review team.  There is also a proposal to extend the call for applications until 7 MAR.

Thank you,

J.



_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170225/9ec8a8a0/attachment.html>