[ALAC] EPDP Early input

[Carlton Samuels]

The At-Large is well-advised to take SSAC publications seriously. For in
regard to problem definition, analysis and recommendations to solution they
are thorough, devoid of hysteria and exhibits an internal logic any
sentient being can apply.

A suggestion.   SAC2018-17
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-17-26jun18-en.pdf>
details the high-level recommendations as principles that the SSAC believes
should guide ePDP deliberations. The SSAC say these recommendations are
extracted from the SAC101 Advisory; in their own words, "*several of the
recommendations are specifically designed as inputs to the ePDP*" then in
construction and particularized further in SAC2018-17.

I have read SAC101 publication and on balance of fact, so affirm.  If you
recall, this is the kind of approach some of us advised the ALAC should
embrace to guide participation of At-Large representatives on the ePDP. One
cannot now say that such a document - meaning an At-Large developed and
ALAC-endorsed document -  emerged from that lot of interventions.

 What I can say is the SSAC-enunciated principles look very much like those
the rational mind of an At-Large participant would support. I would urge
you reject this malignant At-Large propensity to re-invent the wheel.
Endorse the principles as outlined in SAC2018-17 and save yourselves a
bother without a redeemable quality.

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with
> midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.
>
> I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough.
> But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement
> of everything without careful analysis.
>
> Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that,
> in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position
> on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate
> access to WHOIS/RDS data.
>
> If that is the point we want to make.
>
> Marita
>
> On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP
> participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input"
> into the EPDP.
>
> So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at
> https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
>
> The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is
> attached for your convenience.
>
> I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we
> support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to
> ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access
> to WHOIS/RDS data.
>
> I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later
> in the week.
>
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing listALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180828/b6414a71/attachment.html>