[At-Large] Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013

[Holly Raiche]

Hi Carlton

You are the last person who should leave the debate!  Please DO NOT recuse yourself.  You have been involved in the discussions and can guide the rest of us.  The value of you being on the EWG is to help the rest of us.  If you don't want to put your name to something, fine.  But we need your brains  and input - please. 

Holly
On 05/08/2013, at 8:31 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

> Hi Holly:
> It would be well-intentioned for the ALAC to put its views on record.  And
> yes, although I do not represent the ALAC in this framework, I do indeed
> share my impression of the substantive discussions with my EWG colleagues.
> 
> I have from inception facilitated the discussions surrounding access to
> registrant data in the EWG. And to be frank, the  views surrounding that I
> have held and espoused in the ALAC have evolved a tad in this framework.
> You could reasonably say my views have evolved in pursuit of consensus.
> 
> All this aside and while I am well-versed in wearing multiple hats in my
> business, I feel it is appropriate that I recuse myself from participating
> in developing the specific ALAC response to the EWG report.
> 
> Best,
> -Carlton
> 
> 
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>wrote:
> 
>> 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 at 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.htm
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Carlton
>>>>> 
>>>>> ==============================
>>>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>>>>> =============================
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> At-Large mailing list
>>>>> At-Large at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org