<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I sent the attached markup of the final RDS REview II to the review team. I do not like the tone of the report, nor do I really support many of the recommendations, particularly the sections on Law Enforcement
and accuracy. One could tear apart the way the survey was done, the bias against privacy, etc. I was alone on these issues, with occasional support from Volker. I think he just gave up as this being shortly to be proven irrelevant.
<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Anyway, here it is, for those with boring plane rides where they want to fall asleep. I did not verify the correct transpostion of the appendices, nor the definitions.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Cheers Steph</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Subject: </th>
<td>Late markup</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:51:46 -0500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Stephanie Perrin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">
<stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>RDS WHOIS2-RT List <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rds-whois2-rt@icann.org">
<rds-whois2-rt@icann.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Attached is my markup of the document. Overall, this document is impressive in its scope and research. Basically, I think many of our recommendations are sensible. However, the bias towards disclosure of information,
the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS practices already violated data protection law during the time of
the past review are discouraging. Not to mention the fact that the birth of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years telling us how to fix it. The push to continue
doing what we have done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging. I realize we had to review the recommendations
of the previous Review team. We live in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our review is not there.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs. I do not want to resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this
process and final result. I do appreciate that I am a minority view and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections throughout the process.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Chair, NCSG<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>