[ALAC] Fwd: Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart

Tue Oct 2 03:22:32 UTC 2012

HI Carlton

I agree that the very first statement in the Whois Scope of work and in their Final Report, and their Final Final Report, they very carefully and thoroughly explained - in their first recommendation-  the confusion surrounding Whois policies - and why what is needed is a very clear and thorough statement of policy.  And yes, we endorsed that.

What I liked about the SSAC statement was the clarity with which they explained  the need to first address identifying what the various issues are and how best they might be addressed. So I am not clear on why you say that the SSAC 'bounces the rubble'. 

I think it is possible to reconcile the two reports (noting the concern that the SSAC recommendations may be used as yet another excuse to do nothing).  Specifically, BOTH reports are very clear about the need for a policy.  It is possible to read the Final Final report as encompassing the SSAC recommendation - first understanding the problem(s) to be solved, and then providing the solutions.

So in the interests of supporting action on the issue, we can support the Final Final recommendations - stressing that their first recommendation - the development of a policy - is what the SSAC is calling for.  It's a bit slight of hand, but does allow us to push for action that is informed by a full appreciation of the problem(s) that are to be solved.

Holly

On 02/10/2012, at 7:07 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

> The ALAC Statement of March 2011 on "Scope of Work and Roadmap" for the WHOIS Review Team laid out the framework of our expectations on the work of the Review Team. Read it again and you will see our call for a declaration of principle driving WHOIS.  IMO they did just that.
> 
> The WHOIS Review Team Draft report made it clear that "‘a clear, concise and
> well-‐communicated’ WHOIS Policy was necessary and needed.   
> 
> The ALAC Statement on the Draft report - the one voted 13-0 of March 2012 - endorsed that position.  
> 
> The SSAC statement bounces the rubble.
> 
> - Carlton
> 
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Thanks Holly. I note that while the SSAC
> recommendations clearly make sense, and the
> outcomes could change the Review Team
> recommendations, it is not going to happen
> quickly - some of the base issues are the ones
> that we have been debating for years. We do not
> want the review team Recs shelved pending the more glorious project.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 28/09/2012 02:43 AM, Holly Raiche wrote:
> >Hi Alan
> >
> >First - thank you for the work you re doing on
> >this issue.  I have modified my suggestion on
> >questions for the Board to take into account the
> >SSAC recommendations on the WHois
> >Report.  Specifically, they call for a high
> >level, all inclusive (that's us) stakeholder
> >group to develop a policy that addresses the
> >overall purpose of whois - addressing the following:
> >•Why are data collected? •What purpose will the
> >data serve? •Who collects the data? •Where is
> >the data stored and how long is it stored?
> >•Where is the data escrowed and how long is it
> >escrowed? •Who needs the data and why? •Who
> >needs access to logs of access to the data and why?
> >
> >The point the SSAC are making is that we need to
> >think through why, how and who collects the
> >data, how is it used and accessed.   Only when
> >those questions are answered can we start on the
> >recommendations. I tend to agree with them - but
> >happy to support the movement on the
> >recommendations identified as not needing a PDP
> >- and looking at the GNSO document - what is being called for is a policy
> >
> >Holly
> >
> >
> >On 28/09/2012, at 9:48 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >
> >>At the last GNSO Council meeting, the Whois
> >>Review Team issue was discussed, specifically
> >>the inability of the GNSO Council to submit a
> >>single statement addressing the Board's
> >>question on advice on how to address the 16
> >>Recommendations due to the wide range of views
> >>held by the various SGs and Constituencies.
> >>
> >>I made a comment that I found it rather
> >>unfortunate that a statement could not be
> >>submitted, even if it was just a summary of the
> >>various views held. That suggestion was
> >>accepted and I am attaching a draft of the positions held.
> >>
> >>As an aside, one of the replies to my
> >>suggestion was that the GNSO did not need to
> >>oversee such a summary, but rather ICANN staff
> >>could have done it and just given it to the
> >>Board. I was very taken aback by this, because
> >>as some of you may remember, there has been a
> >>LOT of discussion about staff taking GNSO
> >>reports and statements (and those of other
> >>groups such as the ALAC), summarizing them (and
> >>perhaps emphasizing some aspects over others)
> >>and giving them to the Board. The gist of this
> >>discussion is that staff should not be
> >>summarizing (and perhaps editorializing), but
> >>rather the Board should see the SO/AC position.
> >>So this suggestion was almost a wish to return
> >>to the bad old days. I did point out that it
> >>was fine for policy staff to be involved in
> >>such a condensation of positions, but that the
> >>GNSO. The attached paper is the result.
> >>
> >>Alan
> >>
> >>>From: Margie Milam <<mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org>Margie.Milam at icann.org>
> >>>To:
> >>>"<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org"
> >>><<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:11:21 -0700
> >>>Subject: [council] Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart
> >>>
> >>>Dear All,
> >>>
> >>>Please find attached for your review &
> >>>revision, a chart that summarizes the various
> >>>views of the SG/C  with respect to each of the
> >>>WHOIS RT Final Report's Recommendations.
> >>>
> >>>The information included in the Chart was
> >>>obtained from statements made on email lists &
> >>>formal statements that were submitted.  Please
> >>>review them carefully to make sure that the
> >>>description accurately captures the sentiment of your SG/C.
> >>>
> >>>I would appreciate receiving any comments or updates by COB 2 October, 2012.
> >>>
> >>>All the best,
> >>>
> >>>Margie
> >>>
> >>>________
> >>>
> >>>Margie Milam
> >>>Senior Policy Counselor
> >>>ICANN
> >>>________
> >><WHOIS Review Team
> >>Recommendations.doc>_______________________________________________
> >>ALAC mailing list
> >><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >>ALAC Working Wiki:
> >>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> 