[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review

[Metalitz, Steven]

Chuck and colleagues,

I would urge caution about this, for two reasons.

First, opining on this question clearly seems outside the scope of our charter.  Some might wonder whether diverting WG bandwidth to this issue suggests we have extra time on our hands that we don't need to devote to the task assigned to us.

Second, it is worth remembering that the AoC review and this effort address two distinct (though certainly overlapping) issues. The review is about whether ICANN is effectively implementing the current system.  This WG is about whether the current system should be changed (or replaced), in light of the purposes RDS is supposed to serve.

When the Board unanimously approved  the recommendations of the first Whois review team,  they established two tracks of ongoing activity. The first involved improving Whois accuracy and accessibility (i.e., implementing the current system).  The second track led to the WG we have now.  The board, at least, pretty clearly contemplated that both efforts would proceed in parallel.

None of this is to discourage WG members from weighing in on this question individually or through other ICANN structures.    To the contrary, the perspectives of many of our WG members could contribute a lot to the discussion.

Steve Metalitz



From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:59 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review

I wonder if the RDS PDP WG or possibly the leaders of the WG with support from the full WG should prepare and submit a letter to the Board on this? Thoughts? It is definitely an awkward situation but one that I think needs to be dealt with in some way.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:52 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:43:15PM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
> Any WHOIS-RT should be delayed until at least 12 months after this PDP is completed.

I don't see how that's going to be possible. The proposed bylaws won't make that possible, and as nearly as I can tell they are an accurate reflection of what the CCWG's report said. If the bylaws don't reflect what the CCWG-Accountability report says, there's a much bigger process problem than the waste of resources and energy: many people feel that a big problem historically has been implementation of community instructions, and if we don't cleave tightly to the community instructions in this case we shall have a serious legitimacy problem.

I agree it'd be wasteful, but I'm not sure how to avoid it.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160428/f6b37a82/attachment.html>