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

Thu Apr 28 19:09:22 UTC 2016

To be precise, Steve believes that the review 
should or must take place. He may end up being right. Or not.

Alan

At 28/04/2016 11:54 AM, Ayden FÃ©rdeline wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Thank you for raising awareness of this pending 
>review. I do not have enough knowledge of the 
>bylaws (or of the different Policy Development 
>Processes underway in relation to WHOIS) to 
>comment here on the merits of maintaining the 
>review cycle versus potentially adjusting it 
>given our overlapping PDPs, but I would like to 
>share this 
><https://links9.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/wHab0jdTK78RoGAmy?messageId=mB63clYst31h2ZFGb&rn=icmcv5ibuF2YpB0Z31CckBXLzRmct82cudmI&re=icmcv5ibuF2YpB0Z31CckBXLzRmct82cudmI>email 
>from Steve Crocker today. Dr Crocker, speaking 
>in his personal capacity, seems to indicate that 
>the WHOIS-RT will be taking place.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Ayden FÃ©rdeline
>
>On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 4:18 PM, Gomes, Chuck 
><mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com wrote:
>
>Thanks for the quick feedback Steve.  I 
>wouldnâ€™t see the WG spending very much time on 
>this, but, that said, your points are understood.
>
>
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:13 AM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; Andrew Sullivan; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review
>
>
>
>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 donâ€™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: 
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>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; 
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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: 
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>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: <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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
><mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>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/20160428/7cd813bf/attachment.html>