[At-Large] R: Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 5 00:13:21 UTC 2013
I can provide one point for thoughts, that ALAC might think to include in
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
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?
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-
> bounces at 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
> ALAC statements in the past are not applicable to this proposal. And, as
> 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
> 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
> ALAC statements to support what you are saying.
> Just please keep us informed of ongoing discussions.
> 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
> 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-
> >>> tm
> >>> -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
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large