[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Fri Feb 24 07:33:44 EET 2017
Hi all,
are we ok with sharing the comments below to council list?
please respond asap, the deadline is today 20:00UTC .
Best,
Rafik
2017-02-23 9:29 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> hi,
>
> Thanks Kathy for the suggestions!
> councilors have until 2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB to suggest comments or
> edits. so can we review the suggestions and we can submit them to the
> council list as input from NCSG. please if you have any other comments or
> suggestion, please suggest some wording for the document.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-02-22 22:40 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>:
>
>> Tx you, Stephanie for cc'ing me. I don't think this scope goes far
>> enough -- and I don't see any questions asking about the protections for
>> Registrants. We worked very hard in Whois Review Team One to ensure that
>> the inquiry was balanced and that everyone knew that Whois investigations,
>> disclosures and compilations could hurt those Noncommercial Registrants and
>> others who use the DNS for free speech, free expression, fair use and fair
>> dealing and other forms of treasured communication -- including speech
>> critical to governments, corporations, even ICANN!
>>
>> Accordingly, I look at the list below and wonder (in red) about whether
>> it can be expanded to at least be balanced and not completely one-sided in
>> its review (e.g., how much can we give those who complain (IP and LE)?
>> *Q**uick note that I have no idea how to take these suggestions to those
>> who can process them -- do you? Can you?*
>>
>> Best, Kathy
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Whether RDS efforts meet the “legitimate needs of law enforcement,
>> promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.”
>> - Whether RDS effort protect the legitimate rights of registrants
>> - individuals, noncommercial organizations, small businesses and others, in
>> their right to communicate political, personal, research, hobby and
>> educational ideas with the privacy granted under national laws and
>> consistent with the best free expression traditions of the world.
>> -
>>
>> How RDS current & future recommendations might be improved and
>> better coordinated for the benefit of all stakeholders.
>> -
>>
>> Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues and Implementation
>> - How was the balance achieved in this long and painstaking
>> Working Group? (with over 10,000 comments)
>> - Has implementation under the direction of ICANN Staff and a
>> much smaller team of volunteers fulfilled (or not) the goals of the PPSAI
>> Working Group
>> -
>>
>> Compliance enforcement actions, structure, and processes
>> - Where are the Due Process Protections for registrants?
>> - Where is ICANN Compliance in ensuring that registrants know
>> when their domain names are being investigated (e.g., ensuring that
>> registrars contact registrants re: investigation in a timely manner and
>> with information about how to respond, and if not ICANN handles this
>> function)?
>> - How does ICANN Compliance evaluate complaints for harassment
>> and "bullshit factor" -- someone reporting something in the Whois record
>> that does not impact the reliability of the data or the reachability of the
>> registrant (e.g., a student not having a cell phone due to financial
>> constraints, but otherwise COMPLETELY reachable by email, regular mail,
>> etc.)?
>> - How can a registrant appeal a takedown of his/her/its domain
>> name by ICANN Compliance -- and even investigate the details (registrants
>> are going in circles trying to understand how their domain names
>> disappeared).
>> - What steps can Compliance take to throw out abuse by those
>> filing complaints? How can Compliance let the community know these
>> anti-abuse steps are being taken?
>> -
>>
>> Availability of transparent enforcement of contractual obligations
>> data
>> -
>>
>> The value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol
>> -
>>
>> The effectiveness of any other steps ICANN Org has taken to
>> implement WHOIS Recommendations
>> - How have changes in law, high level court decision, adoption of
>> data protection laws worldwide, etc, changed the legal framework of Whois
>> and RDS data since the original Whois Review Team Report and how does this
>> impact ICANN's work going forward.
>> -
>>
>> On 2/20/2017 6:15 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really don't have much
>> guidance; I don't quite understand exactly what we are going to
>> study.....but I like the idea of 6 months. Copying Kathy who co-chaired
>> the last one, she is most likely to be able to figure out if this will
>> work....
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: [council] RDS Scope Guidance
>> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000
>> From: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>> Councilors –
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, which
>> consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs on
>> guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the upcoming RDS (WHOIS)
>> review. Time is tight, so if you have any comments or edits, please
>> respond by *2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be distributed to
>> RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that they are still interested in
>> serving on this review team. There is also a proposal to extend the call
>> for applications until 7 MAR.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170224/9340a97e/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list