[Epdp-dt] Team composition - RSSAC omitted

Mon Jul 16 14:17:32 UTC 2018

I would just like to remark that we were plagued in the RDS PDP with a 
plethora of security folks...researchers, contractors, corporate types, 
etc. who advanced only one point of view....keep open access to WHOIS, 
it is a) easy for us b) free c) uncomplicated, we have already built our 
ML and Analytic systems around it d) we need (name a product ) from the 
existing value added service providers (e.g.Domain Tools), e) criminals 
will take over the world if you don't listen to us.  These are 
legitimate concerns, but if we are importing a whole range of actors 
from several ACs (GAC, ALAC, RSSAC, SSAC c.f. recent document SSAC 101) 
advancing the identical security specialist's viewpoint, which we ought 
to recognize by now ignores DP law, I think we have destroyed the GNSO 
balance and are likely to revisit the morass we fell into on the RDS 
group.  Now, I don't really care if the temp spec falls away because we 
either can't reach consensus, or wind up with a product that will not 
stand up in Court.  However, the GNSO and ICANN ought to care deeply.  
So if we accept RSSAC can we limit the influence they will have on the 
consensus calculus, if I am correct in my fears? it is probably too late 
to try to exercise any restraint on the other parties (so far over five 
years, my batting average on risk assessment is really pretty 
outstanding.  Nobody is listening yet....)

Cheers Stephanie

On 2018-07-16 07:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Hi Heather,
>
> I don't formally object to their participation; I just don't 
> understand why they would want to participate. If they are invited to 
> participate, I hope we can make it clear that they are neither 
> required nor expected to send anyone. And perhaps it would be better 
> to allocate them only one seat (with one alternate)?
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 16 July 2018 1:06 PM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, all, for your rapid responses.
>>
>> Rafik - I note you specifically stated that your point wasn't to be 
>> understood as an objection. Michele, Ayden, may I check with you both 
>> please that this is also the case for yourselves? I personally 
>> believe that Rafik has made an excellent point but I also note that 
>> when PDP participation is open, we welcome members and observers from 
>> throughout the community. We have the WG Guidelines as a means of 
>> differentiating the PDP from a CCWG here and going forward.
>>
>> All that said, I hesitate to inform the RSSAC unless we're all in 
>> agreement here that there isn't grounds to object.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Heather
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     +1 Michele
>>
>>     —Ayden
>>
>>
>>     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>     On 16 July 2018 10:47 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>>     <michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>     I tend to agree with Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>>     I also don’t understand why RSSAC would be interested in this
>>>     and even if they are they’ll get opportunities to provide input
>>>     via public comment periods etc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>     Michele
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --
>>>
>>>     Mr Michele Neylon
>>>
>>>     Blacknight Solutions
>>>
>>>     Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>>
>>>     https://www.blacknight.com/
>>>
>>>     http://blacknight.blog/
>>>
>>>     Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>>>
>>>     Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>>
>>>     Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>>>
>>>     Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>>>
>>>     -------------------------------
>>>
>>>     Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>>>     Park,Sleaty
>>>
>>>     Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>>>
>>>
>>>     *From: *Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org
>>>     <mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Rafik Dammak
>>>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>     *Date: *Monday 16 July 2018 at 01:04
>>>     *To: *Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>
>>>     *Cc: *"epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>"
>>>     <epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>>
>>>     *Subject: *Re: [Epdp-dt] Team composition - RSSAC omitted
>>>
>>>
>>>     hi Heather,
>>>
>>>
>>>     while I don't want to object and raise a problem for us as a
>>>     group but I would like to make a point.
>>>
>>>     I think we are making a GNSO (E)PDP de facto a CCWG regardless
>>>     if RSSAC or ccNSO appointing representatives and I don't think
>>>     this is something we intended or expect for GNSO PDP. I would
>>>     like to highlight that we are setting a precedent here that will
>>>     be hard to argue against in future.
>>>
>>>      I can understand for the idea to be inclusive and open the door
>>>     to other SO/AC  since we chose to limit the size and
>>>     participation but in fact, only GAC, SSAC and possibly ALAC
>>>     expressed interest to join the EPDP and shared some of their
>>>     positions.  I heard arguments about ccNSO as they may bring
>>>     ccTLD operators in EU may bring their own experience(while
>>>     noticing ccNSO didn't appoint any representative to RDS2 RT). I
>>>     am not sure what RSSAC and so Root Server Operators can bring
>>>     here as I don't think they are dealing with whois in any way.
>>>
>>>
>>>     I just wanted to share my thoughts here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     Le dim. 15 juil. 2018 à 19:31, Heather Forrest
>>>     <haforrestesq at gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>         Dear DT colleagues,
>>>
>>>
>>>         It has come to my attention that we failed to include the
>>>         RSSAC in the SO/AC allocations on the DT. I have checked
>>>         with the small group, who have confirmed that the RSSAC
>>>         wasn't discussed there. We mentioned SSAC in the DT call
>>>         last week. This makes me think that the RSSAC's absence on
>>>         the team composition document is an oversight in our intense
>>>         efforts. Equal treatment gives them the same as ALAC, ccNSO
>>>         and SSAC. I'm putting this out to the DT mailing list to
>>>         check if there are any objections. If so, please raise these
>>>         swiftly, as the RSSAC is already behind in terms of the
>>>         invite for participants and we'll need to notify them ASAP.
>>>         I'd like to give it 24 hours to be as efficient as possible
>>>         here.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Many thanks and best wishes,
>>>
>>>
>>>         Heather
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Epdp-dt mailing list
>>>         Epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>
>>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
>>>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Epdp-dt mailing list
> Epdp-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180716/4e8d87ea/attachment-0001.html>