[lac-discuss-es] RV: [At-Large] R: Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013

Lun Ago 5 01:20:30 UTC 2013

Alejandro muchas gracias.
Muy oportuno
Antonio Medina

2013/8/4 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan en unam.mx>

> Colegas,
>
> reenvío una discusión que se está dando en la lista de At Large sobre el
> "nuevo whois", para insistir en la importancia de continuar la discusión
> iniciada y orientar a nuestros representantes en el ALAC al respecto.
>
> Observen que hay temas en los que esta comunidad ha intervenido antes,
> como el de transjurisdiccionalidad.
>
> Añado que las opiniones de Roberto Gaetano suelen estar bien documentadas
> y pensadas, y que están alimentadas por muchos años de experiencia desde
> antes de la fundación de ICANN, y con puntos de vista diversos en la
> comunidad At Large y años de espléndido servicio en el Board.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
>
>
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
> ________________________________________
> Desde: at-large-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org [
> at-large-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Holly Raiche [
> h.raiche en internode.on.net]
> Enviado el: domingo, 04 de agosto de 2013 19:36
> Hasta: At-Large Worldwide
> Asunto: Re: [At-Large] R:  Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013
>
> Thank you Karl and Roberto for your comments
>
> Roberto, the location of the ARDS is absolutely front and centre as an
> issue. Some of the immediate comments  I heard was to insist the database
> NOT be located in the US (followed by a long list of other undesirable
> locations).  I would imagine places like Geneva or Brussels (or Finland)
> would be more easily accepted.  But I think the better solution is to
> describe the venue in terms of strict and enforceable (and enforced)
> privacy laws. - set benchmark criteria at the least.
>
> Other issues that were discussed on the day included enforcement - by whom
> (ICANN's compliance department has not covered itself with glory on this
> one), and defining who can have access to what data.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
> On 05/08/2013, at 10:13 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > I can provide one point for thoughts, that ALAC might think to include in
> > the feedback.
> > During the presentation, and in the text of the report, there is a
> > description of how to design access to data in a way that it will be
> > dependent on the rights the accessing entity has.
> > However, there is one entity that might gain full access to all data, and
> > this is the government of the country where the database will be
> physically
> > located.
> > I had a chat with Michele on this, and he assured me that this is one
> point
> > that came already out, and will be discussed to find an acceptable
> solution.
> > I have no clue about the dynamics of the WG, I am sure, knowing Carlton,
> > that our points have been expressed loudly, but maybe a little help from
> an
> > official ALAC statement can help.
> > Let's put it this way: other constituencies and stakeholder groups will
> not
> > be shy in making statements that will push further their opinion and
> needs,
> > beyond what was the acceptable consensus of the WG: why should ALAC avoid
> > providing feedback? Michele is absolutely right when he calls for further
> > input, he knows some will speak up anyway, it is fair if all do.
> > Elaborating on the localization of the database, that we know is an
> issue,
> > is there something we can suggest? We do not need to provide the
> technical
> > solution, but can we spell out the requirements for making sure that no
> > specific entity will be more equal than others?
> > Cheers,
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> >> -----Messaggio originale-----
> >> Da: at-large-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-
> >> bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Holly Raiche
> >> Inviato: domenica 4 agosto 2013 23:08
> >> A: At-Large Worldwide
> >> Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013
> >>
> >> Hi Carlton
> >>
> >> Thanks for this.
> >>
> >> My one concern about ALAC not developing its own input is that, at the
> >> GNSO meeting Evan and I attended (and where Michele presented), he
> >> specifically asked, indeed pleaded for feedback from everyone.
> >>
> >> I am sure that you will be taking the views that we have discussed to
> the
> >> EWG. But I think my question is whether it would not make sense to have
> >> official ALAC input on this particular proposal.  It is different enough
> > so that
> >> ALAC statements in the past are not applicable to this proposal.   And,
> as
> > the
> >> discussion between Garth, you, Evan, Rinalia and I showed in Durban,
> there
> >> are different views on the proposal within  ALAC.
> >>
> >> For example, should we give the many reforms to the RAA a chance to work
> >> first? Should compliance be left to the compliance area within ICANN or
> to
> >> this new proposed ARDS?  And what happens to the RAA requirements on
> >> verification if the ARDS takes over that function, as well as being the
> >> gatekeeper for access to data.  It is a new road with much to commend it
> > but,
> >> as our discussions showed, some real reservations, and some real
> >> differences even within ALAC.
> >>
> >> I trust you to reflect those differences, but worry that you don't have
> > official
> >> ALAC statements to support what you are saying.
> >>
> >> Just please keep us informed of ongoing discussions.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Holly
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/08/2013, at 6:23 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Holly:
> >>> I should think not; this was an advisory and in any event, we have
> >>> spoken often and endorsed the collection of the entire dataset as
> >>> defined in the specs.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding the EWG work, there was talk of placing an official ALAC
> >>> response to invitation for comments.  Since I'm a member of the EWG,
> >>> speaking aloud to myself might very well be considered just desserts
> >>> in some quarters and as such not to be encouraged. So I will exempt
> > myself
> >> from that process.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> -Carlton
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ==============================
> >>> Carlton A Samuels
> >>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >>> =============================
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Holly Raiche
> >> <h.raiche en internode.on.net>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Carlton
> >>>>
> >>>> It doesn't look like they are looking for any input from anyone -
> >>>> except registrars. Am I right?
> >>>>
> >>>> And a related question - is ALAC making a statement of the EWG
> >>>> Initial Report.  I don't see anything on the policy page, but my
> >>>> understanding was that they were looking for feedback?
> >>>>
> >>>> Holly
> >>>> On 02/08/2013, at 2:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> See the details here:
> >>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-
> >> 31jul13-en.h
> >>>>> tm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Carlton
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ==============================
> >>>>> Carlton A Samuels
> >>>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >>>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >>>>> =============================
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> At-Large mailing list
> >>>>> At-Large en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> At-Large mailing list
> >>>> At-Large en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>>>
> >>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> At-Large mailing list
> >>> At-Large en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>>
> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-es mailing list
> lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> http://www.lacralo.org
>