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

[Holly Raiche]

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 <Margie.Milam at icann.org>
>> To: "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
> 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)