<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>That’s a good point, Avri. Currently, with the decentralized system, ICANN is not the administrator. The EWG suggested several models for the new RDS. The one I find to be the lesser of all evils is the “opt-out model”. This allows “thick” registries to opt-out of aggregation of whois info if they agree to provide query services with yet undetermined specifications that would be detailed in a service level agreement.</div><div><br></div><div>The NCSG response to the EWG status update report expressed disapproval of the aggregated model, although separation of policy and implementation organisations wasn’t one of the reasons listed as troubling. A good thought for future discussions when a post-EWG will be initiated.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks, Avri.</div><div><br></div><div>Amr</div><br><div><div>On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:11 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">BTW, assuming the EWRs centralized registrant database comes into existence, who do we think should administer it?<br><br>I see the questions as tied in. I believe that ICANN will ultimately want to administer it, or whatever replaces it. Especially if they become the trusted administrator of all things critical.<br><br>avri<br><br><br>On 16-Mar-14 12:28, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Surely agree. None of this make WHOIS and other topics less important,<br>and I will, in my own capacity, be following them very closely in<br>Singapore and beyond.<br><br>Thanks.<br><br>Amr<br><br>On Mar 16, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a><br><<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a>>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Hi Stephanie,<br><br>no worries, there will be discussion about the issue (a lot of<br>discussion). I am working to update the agenda for NCSG meeting and<br>topics with the board . we have to adapt to the new context.<br><br>for whois and other ongoing topics like accountability, we need to<br>keep following them, the challenge is how we to handle all these in<br>parallel because we cannot drop them.<br><br>Best Regards,<br><br>Rafik<br><br>2014-03-16 23:34 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin<br><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a><br><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>>:<br><br> +1 Avri. Bad things happen in chaos, and there could be a lot of<br> it as folks take this announcement for more than it is, and all<br> the aforementioned crazy views get ventilated. I am busy reading<br> that law article on accountability that Zittrain referenced in his<br> piece (thanks to whoever forwarded it) but I am a long long way<br> from having an intelligent view on how this transition should<br> occur, and what the what in transition to what means (apologies to<br> non-english speakers for that one!).<br> Is there time in Singapore to have a serious discussion/tutorial<br> on this? and does focusing on it put anything else at risk with<br> respect to decision-making at Netmundial? For instance, I have<br> given up on thinking that anyone else will be focusing on<br> decisions on the WHOIS makeover now...and some really un-good<br> things could happen.<br> cheers Stephanie<br> On 2014-03-16, at 8:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote:<br><br> > On 16-Mar-14 06:16, William Drake wrote:<br> >><br> >> All the more reason for civil society actors to clear their<br> throats and<br> >> bring a little sanity….<br> >><br> ><br> > But views in so-called civil society are all over the map and<br> match idea for idea both the crazy and the sane we see elsewhere.<br> Certainly lots of civil society actors are talking now, but we<br> have widely divergent view points.<br> ><br> > I think that first we have to agree on some sane ideas. I doubt<br> we can find many we agree on, but if we find just a few basic<br> ideas like "No the UN is not going to get IANA", we may be doing<br> all we can do as a group.<br> ><br> > For example there are many proposals for the way forward. The<br> most famous being that offered by Brenden and Milton with lots of<br> other contributions including one I made. These are all very<br> different and it will take a bit of work to distill from all of<br> them the actual path forward. While it looks like NCSG already<br> endorsed the Brenden and Milton plan, I don't remember us doing<br> so, though many here do endorse it. I don't happen to, though I do<br> credit it for making me think about this seriously - I probably<br> would not have made a contribution if I had not been so disturbed<br> by their contribution. So I am grateful to is for showing me a<br> path we should not follow.<br> ><br> > So yeah Civil Society needs to open its mouth, but what are we<br> going to say?<br> ><br> > avri</blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>