[RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Public Comment on Short Term Options
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue May 29 02:43:07 UTC 2018
During today's plenary call, the RT decided to accept Theresa
Swineheart's offer and request that the RDS-WHOIS2 Review be removed
from the Public Comment on Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline
for Specific Reviews. Although I am not sure that the decision can be
viewed as consensus using the rule-of-thumb of 80%, it was definitely
a majority decision.
The group did consider the issue raised by Chris. Specifically to
what extent would we be viewed in a bad light for cutting off comment
on our work. There was a strong belief that we are doing this for
good reasons and that presuming the team members go back to our home
constituencies and explain what we are doing, in balance, this is the
right decision.
This is not in final form, but and identification of the major points
to get review team closure. I am not looking for word-smithing but
rather any issues misstated of missing.
I would like to have a draft ready by Wednesday, so please review
this as soon as possible.
-----------
Letter sent to Theresa Swineheart on beheld of the RDS-WHOIS2-RT and
also posted to the Public Comment.
The rationale that we will use to make this request is based on our
belief that once a number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations are
corrected, there is little to be gained at this point from altering
the scope or pausing the review.
There are some review team members and others in the community who
believed that this review should have been deferred, or its scope
restricted to just a review of the first WHOIS RT's Recommendations.
That was thoroughly discussed prior to the review and during the
scoping phase. Ultimately, it was decided that the review must
continue and should not be restricted. That was many months ago and
we cannot turn back the clock but must look at today's situation, and
where we will be when the Public Comment (PC) completes in July.
= The Review Terms of Reference (ToR) does state that due to GDPR, we
MAY defer some aspects of the review which we did not believe would
substantially alter our completion target. In fact, we have not
deferred anything at this point and now believe that GDPR will have a
significant impact on our work. The full implementation of GDPR may
or may not be understood by the time we deliver our report, but we
will certainly understand the overall direction and that will be a
factor in our report. It is clear that the real impact will not be
well understood by then nor even a few months later, so the analysis
of that will have to wait for a subsequent review.
= The document implies that because there are only ten RT members,
there are insufficient people to do the work. In fact there are just
ten members, but all are working together and the number of active
workers may well exceed the number of active workers on previous larger teams.
= The PC document says that $460k will be saved in FY19 by
restricting the scope of the review and that $590k will be saved by
pausing the review. The review team has not been involved in
estimating any of these budgets and does not believe that they are accurate.
[Financial Analysis here]
= The public comment is due to close on 06 July 2018 with the staff
report due on 23 Jul7 2018. According to the current Review Team work
plan, the Review Team is scheduled to have a face to face meeting
19-20 July 2018. Our intent is that we finalize the content of our
draft report at that time. Moreover, unlike some draft reports which
are comprised of many questions to the community, we believe that
this will really be a draft report looking for community comment
before finalizing it. It makes little sense for the group to reduce
its scope or completely pause just at the point when it is ready to
deliver its draft report. By that time, the bulk of the work will
have been done, and to scrap part of it or pause for a year implies
much of that work will have to largely be repeated again later. The
RT specifically notes that Option C, to have the Review paused in
April (a date that had long past when the PC was issued) made no
sense whatsoever given that the community input to make that decision
would only be available in late July.
The Review Team believes that if it had been consulted when this
Public Comment was being contemplated and developed, the RDS-WHOIS2
Review would never have been included. Moreover, the Review Team
strongly believes that if a RT is to be held accountable for keeping
to its "budget" (as is the current practice), the RT MUST be involved
in developing that overall budget and the annual FY budgets that it
must operationally adhere to.
More information about the RDS-WHOIS2-RT
mailing list