[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Agreed.

T.

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 01:34:29PM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> 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.