[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Fri Feb 24 20:34:29 EET 2017
I don't see why not. I doubt anything will happen, but we will be on the
record
stephanie
On 2017-02-24 00:33, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>
> o
>
> Whether RDS efforts meet the “legitimate needs of law
> enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding
> registrant data.”
>
> o 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.
> o
>
> How RDS current & future recommendations might be
> improved and better coordinatedfor the benefit of all
> stakeholders.
>
> o
>
> 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
> o
>
> 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?
> o
>
> Availability of transparent enforcement of contractual
> obligations data
>
> o
>
> The value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol
>
> o
>
> The effectiveness of any other steps ICANN Org has
> taken to implement WHOIS Recommendations
>
> o 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.
> o
>
> 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>
>> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170224/55ab2959/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list