[ALAC] Fwd: Re: RDS Review

[Andrei Kolesnikov]

These memories are kept in all SO/ACs of ICANN for many years... As one
said "it's not fun to find a solution for the task which have a solution.
It's great to work on the issue which got no solution and enjoy the
process" :)

--andrei

2017-01-09 13:48 GMT+03:00 Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com>:

> These last few emails are exactly why we need people with institutional
> memory in At Large and ALAC: so new people,  like I, can at least begin to
> grasp the deep complexities of some issues and not fall into the pitfalls
> caused when power is coupled with ignorance.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>
> +1-787-396-6511
> twitter: @javrua
> skype: javier.rua1
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 6:33 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> wrote:
>
> And what I didn’t add was WHY this issue is so HUGE.
>
> Essentially, the RAA requires that WHOIS information (as defined -
> including registrant’s name, address, contact details etc - see Clause
> 3.3.1 in the 2013 RAA)  be publicly available.  And, as many of you are
> aware - that goes absolutely up against data retention laws in the EU,
> Canada, and many other jurisdictions - which means that registrars are
> either breaking their contract with  ICANN or national data retention
> laws.  Fadi - and the Board - recognised those difficulties and established
> the Expert Working Group (Carlton, for his sins, was a member) that came up
> with proposals to address those difficulties including a concept of making
> only limited information on registrants publicly available, with gated
> access to more layers of information, depending on the status of the
> requestor. And the Board has approved of the RDS WG to work - within its
> charter - through EWG proposals.  So, in that way too truncated recitation
> of the outline of the issues, the RDS WG that ALan, Carlton and I are
> members of, are working through what we do about that fundamental
> contradiction between basic data retention law and ICANN’s RAA.  And trust
> me, there are many interest groups that have had access to that publicly
> available personal information and are not happy at the prospect of losing
> that access.
>
> End result - we are YEARS away from a final policy on who has what access
> to what level of registrant personal information. Which is why i cringe at
> the thought of yet another RDS WG - without a final, agreed policy
> framework on access to registrant data.
>
> And yes, that is only one of the issues raised by Whois.
>
> and what Carlton, Alan and I should be doing is bringing you all in to
> participate in this issue - I promise you, there is plenty of policy work
> for years to come - and I”d love company.
> BUT PLEASE, not yet another review
>
> Holly
>
> On 9 Jan 2017, at 1:07 pm, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
>
> I am attaching a document from the GNSO on the proposed RDS (formerly
> WHOIS) Review to be started very soon.
>
>
> You will recall that we previously had approved a narrowing of the scope
> of the RDS Review to focus just on the extent to which the previous WHOIS
> Review Recommendations had been implemented. This GNSO proposal widens the
> scope considerably. Although there is no question that the wider scope is
> interesting and ptentially useful, it will also require far more community
> involvement that the earlier proposal.
>
>
> The call for volunteers was to close on 13 January and a decision needs to
> be made quickly on exactly what the Review should be.
>
>
> Comments please, with some urgency.
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>
> Subject: Re: RDS Review
>
> Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:42:53 +0000
>
>
>
> Dear Karen and Community Leaders –
>
>
> The GNSO Council, working with its component Stakeholder Groups and
> Constituencies, has produced this document (attached), which outlines our
> feedback and concerns with the proposed “limited scope†for the upcoming
> RDS review.  The document was submitted to ICANN Staff, and sharing with
> this team for your reference.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> J.
>
> ----------------
>
> James Bladel
>
> GNSO Chair
>
> <GNSO Council feedback on RDS.pdf>______________________
> _________________________
>
> 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)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>



-- 
Andrey Kolesnikov
RIPN.NET
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170109/60dff747/attachment.html>