Hi again Ayden,

Thanks for picking up on this thread. Like I said, we’re on the clock in terms of getting feedback back to the Council, and you having picked up on this so quickly is really helpful. Here are some general thoughts I have on the scope of the second Registration Directory Services (RDS) Review. Please do let me know what you think of these. Your input will be helpful while considering this on Council, particularly since you are active on the next-generation RDS PDP. I, of course, encourage others to weigh in as well.

First, the elements identified in Article 4, Section 4.6 (e) (iii) of the bylaws are obviously mandatory review topics. That is not to say that the review cannot be broader. It just needs to include what the bylaws say has to be in there. My understanding — and I may be wrong, so folks who know better should correct me — these bylaws were adopted from the previous Affirmations of Commitments (AoC) following WS1 of the CCWG-ACCT. Some of them, as you pointed out, may not be sufficient for an effective review to take place. A lot of this stuff may just be outdated, since the AoC was adopted back in 2009, and the legal privacy/data protection landscape has evolved over the past decade. Still…, for better or for worse, they are the bylaws, and there are many in the community who believe that it is not advisable for ICANN to be perceived to be violating its newly adopted bylaws so soon after transitioning IANA’s stewardship from the US gov to the global multistakeholder community.

Second, I’m not as concerned as you are with a narrow scope for the second RDS Review so long as all the necessary issues needing to be addressed are indeed addressed. The key consideration here is to not duplicate any work that is being done. That is not the same as entirely abandoning the issues that need to be scoped-in. Also, how worthwhile is a review of the current RDS, when we have a mega PDP WG repurposing and redesigning it anyway? Academically, it certainly has value, but in light of all the ongoing work the community is engaged in right now, and constant concerns being raised on volunteer burnout, this is an important consideration. These were in fact among the key considerations when a limited scope review was first suggested (since, as per the bylaws, it needs to take place regardless of the massive RDS reform work already underway).

Third, it is likely that a significant number of the RT members will end up being folks already participating in the next-gen RDS PDP. If topic are identified that are not being addressed by either group, then certainly, those should be added to the scope of one or the other. It is also important that both groups (RT and PDP WG) remain well informed of progress on both fronts. It isn’t unforeseeable that collaboration and interdependencies come to exist between the two groups. For example, this sort of relationship already exists between the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP, the RPMs Review and the CCT Review. In fact the new gTLDs sub-pro and RPMs review PDP have a liaison between them because of the identified interdependencies between the two topics being deliberated upon. It would make sense to me to do something along those lines on all the ongoing RDS work too.

Anyway…, the bottom line for me is that no issues get left behind. It matters less to me where the work is done, but that it is done (but not done twice by two groups working across each other). At the end of the day, only the recommendations coming out of a GNSO PDP should find their way in to contracted parties agreements with ICANN anyway.

I hope this help, and thanks again Ayden.

Amr

> On Dec 16, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> The moment I pressed 'send' on that message, I realised that section 4.6 (e) (iii) is an extract from the new bylaws, so we don't have any chance really but to accept it. Sorry — please ignore everything I wrote! My original message, however, about having a broader scope, remains something I consider important for this Review, though I'm open to hearing why a narrower focus may be a better path forward. 
> 
> Thanks again for inviting feedback,
> 
> Ayden Férdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [urgent] feedback needed re: scope of Registry Directory Service Review (Team)
>> Local Time: 16 December 2016 6:40 AM
>> UTC Time: 16 December 2016 06:40
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> To: Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> Thank you for sharing this document. I have just reviewed it, and I would like to expand upon my previous comments, where I expressed concern about this Review having a limited scope, by noting that I do not support this proposed charter either. 
>> 
>> In particular, I am uncomfortable with section 4.6 (e) (iii), which limits the Review team to considering only certain data protection regimes. The OECD guidelines which the Review Team would be restricted to have a number of deficiencies/gaps. I would feel more comfortable empowering the independent, subject matter experts who will serve on this Review Team to evaluate the RDS in relation to the privacy frameworks which they consider to be most relevant. To be clear - these experts might well decide that the OECD guidelines are appropriate (privacy is a disputed concept, both in law and philosophy, and these are a decent - but imperfect - set of minimum principles), but in my view they don’t get quite right the balance between the protection of privacy and individual liberties, and the advancement or lack thereof of the free flow of personal data. 
>> 
>> I am also unclear as to how we can both assess the current RDS and whether or not it safeguards registrant data and meets law enforcement needs, and assess the value of RDAP as a replacement protocol, among other things, when there would be a a “clear statement prohibiting duplication of work that is the purview of the RDS PDP WG”. I like the sentiment, I just don’t know how that can happen in practice. 
>> 
>> Thanks again for inviting our comments on the proposed limited scope of the Review. I am curious to hear what others think about the draft charter which has been circulated today. 
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Ayden Férdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
>> 
>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [urgent] feedback needed re: scope of Registry Directory Service Review (Team)
>>> Local Time: 15 December 2016 8:05 PM
>>> UTC Time: 15 December 2016 20:05
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> Thanks for this Stefi,
>>> 
>>> Following up on what Stefi said, I want to draw some attention to a couple of important points:
>>> 
>>> 1. The document discussing the scope of the next WHOIS Review (attached) is very different from the one we discussed on Tuesday’s call. The GNSO Council had initially intended on keeping the scope of the review very limited. Over the past 24 hours, Council representatives from the RySG and BC have drawn our attention to new bylaws requirements concerning the WHOIS Review (which I believe were formerly part of the Affirmations of Commitments). These bylaws will likely require the scope of the review to be broader than first envisioned by the Council. The relevant bylaws language is in the attached document, and you can also find it here (Article 4, Section 4.6(e)): https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4.
>>> 
>>> 2. Time is extremely tight on this. The GNSO Council is very late in a number of action items concerning different reviews, partly because of the changes in bylaws and procedures in getting the reviews done, as well as staffing them. As pointed out by Stefi, the call for volunteers for this review team is still open, but the Council needs to send its response to the ICANN Board on the scope by Thursday, December 22nd (one week from today). Councillors agreed to solicit input from our respective stakeholder groups and constituencies with a deadline of next Tuesday (December 19th), so that the Council may have two days to consider this input and draft our response to the Board’s question on this (regarding scope).
>>> 
>>> I know time is tight, but please, if interested, review this document and give feedback by Tuesday at the latest. Anything else beyond that will likely not make it in to the GNSO’s input to the Board.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > On Dec 15, 2016, at 9:39 PM, Milan, Stefania <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > Dear all
>>> > 
>>> > I would like to draw your attention to a discussion currently ongoing within the GNSO council, and concerning the Registration Directory Services (RDS, ex WHOIS) Review.
>>> > 
>>> > A document describing a proposed limited scope for the forthcoming RDS Review was sent to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) of ICANN back in November, but did not receive much attention to date. Councilors are now expected to bring back to the Council list feedback on the proposal. The document in question can be found here: https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfh3K9ucZUtx.pdf
>>> > 
>>> > It would be great to get some conversation going on this topic. Please read (it is only one page!) and give us a sense of what you would like to see happening here, especially concerning the proposed limited scope of the Review Team, and the need to make sure that there is no duplication of work done in Policy Development Processes, PDP (namely the ongoing RDS PDP).
>>> > 
>>> > And by the way, there is a call for volunteers for the review team, now open till January 13 (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-10-28-en). Do consider applying if you have some expertise on the subject matter (see also (see also https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63145785).
>>> > 
>>> > A summary of the Council meeting, as resolved in September, is under way (I am the councilor responsible for this time round), and will be posted to this list after the weekend at the latest.
>>> > 
>>> > Best, Stefi
>>> > ----------------------
>>> > Stefania Milan, PhD
>>> > University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
>>> > Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
>>> > Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
>>> > mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
>>> > stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
>>> > 
>>> > fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850 EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>>> > 
>>> > 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.
>>> 
>> 
>