[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Apologies, and some reflections on requirements

[Gomes, Chuck]

I want to call attention to the following three paragraphs from the communique regarding Privacy & Proxy Services:

"III. If  the  Board  resolves  to  adopt  the  PPSAI  recommendations,  it should  direct  the  Implementation  Review  Team (IRT)  to  ensure 
that    the    GAC   concerns    are   effectively   addressed    in   the implementation phase to the greatest extent possible.
IV. GAC  input  and  feedback  should  be  sought  out  as  necessary  in developing  a  proposed  implementation  plan,  including  through 
participation   of   the    Public   Safety   Working   Group   on   the Implementation Review Team.
V. If, in  the  course  of  the  implementation discussions,  policy issues emerge,  they  should  be  referred  back  to  the  GNSO  for  future 
deliberations    in    consultation    with    the    GAC    on    potential enhancements to privacy and proxy service accreditation."

To me it is a good sign that the GAC recognizes that the Board may adopt the PPSAI recommendations as is and, to the extent that the GAC recommendations can be dealt with during implementation, that is okay.  Note that they say "to the greatest extent possible".

Paragraph V then goes on to say exactly what should happen according to the Policy & Implementation recommendations that the Board approved.

In my opinion, the GAC's statements in this part of the communique demonstrate that they are understanding and accepting their role and the role of the GNSO.  That is a good sign.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 8:33 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Apologies, and some reflections on requirements

> See the GAC Communique from Helsinki for their input on the Privacy & 
> Proxy Services PDP recommendations.

When reading a GAC Communique, is it only me that automagically undoes their search-and-replace between "advises" and "demands" whilst desperately trying to filter out the subliminal message "you will obey" 
that's carefully hidden between each line ?

I have no doubt that there will come a policy relating to P&P Services, but it can and will only ever be applicable to those directly provided by Registrars and Registries, and likely prove counter-productive in the long-run.

There will never be an absolute connection between the Registrant and the beneficiary/operator/user of a domain, just like there is no absolute connection between who is currently inside a building and who is listed as owning the land it sits on.

> I sort of alluded to this in my original remarks.  This is also part 
> of the reason why I think the entire "accurate whois data" shuffle is 
> such an absurd waste of time.

Partly because every group-with-an-agenda has a very different definition of what they think the word "accurate" means :)

Rob
--
Rob Golding   rob.golding at astutium.com
Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR

* domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups * _______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg