[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance
Milan, Stefania
Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
Fri Feb 24 21:23:51 EET 2017
Me agreeing too. Stefania
________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Inviato: venerdì 24 febbraio 2017 20.05.28
A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance
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.
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list