[ALAC] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report

[Javier Rua]

+1.  Statement Ok.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:56 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> Perhaps the opinion of the ALAC/CPWG will change on today's call!
>
> Alan
> --
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On February 15, 2019 9:48:49 AM EST, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Alan,
>>
>> Am fine with the statement moving forward I just feel it doesn't read
>> well that we outrightly do not accept certain yet accept the package
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 15:42 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Seun.
>>>
>>> Note that Rec #6 does allow you to specify that your contact information
>>> be disdplayed (on the registrar site only!) but no timeline when they must
>>> provide this option.
>>>
>>> If you are in general supporting the issuing of the statement, it would
>>> be helpful to put that on the record (no obligation obviously though!).
>>>
>>> On not accepting the report on the whole, this was debated on the last
>>> CPWG call and the consensus (but not unanimous) was that we not do that.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> At 15/02/2019 04:59 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Alan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing this which is good. A few minor editorials and
>>> comment:
>>>
>>> 1. "“that it would be difficult to argue that *that* processing to
>>> prevent DNS...."
>>>
>>> 2 "...Phase 2 will *be* address the deferred issues as..."
>>>
>>> 3. I am not sure why we say "we do not accept" certain issues yet we
>>> seem to end our statement by accepting the report. Since/if we have
>>> red-lines then we should clearly not accept the report as a whole. However
>>> if we can live with the report as indicated in the last paragraph then I
>>> suggest we modify the following:
>>>
>>> "To be specific, the results which we cannot accept are:...." So it
>>> doesn't contradict the acceptance stated in the last paragraph.
>>>
>>> That said, I agree with Gorge, that the element of choice/consent is
>>> being taken away from registrants in terms of what they want to provide and
>>> publish.
>>>
>>> It's election period in my country, my apologies as I won't be present
>>> at upcoming cpwg call
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sent from my mobile
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 01:28 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>>> wrote: As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find
>>> the draft statement to be attached to the report.
>>> I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which
>>> there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report,
>>> but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our
>>> support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
>>> The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether
>>> Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
>>> THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any
>>> comments with utmost urgency.
>>> Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call
>>> tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
>>> WORD and PDF formats are attached.
>>> Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list
>>> CPWG at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________
>>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20190215/e538996d/attachment.html>