Hi Desiree,
I agree with most of what is in the Google statement, and believe the concerns you raise are consistent with what the IAB is also saying. So endorsing their comment doesn’t lead to an endorsement of immediate implementation of gated access, but hopefully allows for this to be done when/if it becomes a policy without too much fuss.
I’ll also add that I agree with most of what is in the statement submitted by Google, but note that this a comment on the implementation of one of the “thick” whois policies — consistent labelling and display of data. ICANN has said in the implementation framework under review that the use of RDAP is one of the policy recommendation outcomes of the “thick” whois PDP. Google have accurately (if memory serves correctly) pointed out that the use of RDAP was not part of the “thick” whois policy at all, and shouldn’t be presented to be so. The repercussions of this being included in the consensus policy is that it would become mandatory for gTLD registries and registrars to begin implementing the use of RDAP, when this mandate didn’t go through a GNSO PDP (yet).
Google also objected to some new mandatory fields (not registrant data) being added to the whois that are optional in the 2013 RAA. ICANN seems to have interpreted the implementation of consistent labelling and display of “thick” whois data to mean that those optional fields now need to be mandatory. There was no recommendation in the “thick” whois policy to that effect either (again…, if memory serves correctly).
To be honest, while I was a member of the PDP working group, I wasn’t an active member of the sub-team that worked on this, so am not sure whether or not these issues were discussed. It’s pretty clear, however, that these implementation guidelines were not part of the GNSO final report and recommendations that were later adopted by the ICANN board.
Anyway…, I don’t see an endorsement of the IAB statement to conflict with anything Google is saying. The IAB was very clear that if ICANN implements RDAP now, it is in the absence of a policy requiring this or specifying how it is to be set up, and should not be misrepresented as anything else.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Desiree Miloshevic <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I endorsed IAB statement since we may all end up there in the end.
> While the IAB suggests differentiated access regarding data exposure, I do find that
> google's comment too is worth supporting, e.g. not to offer public access to the data.
>
>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/pdfXEuYViKmu4.pdf
>
> The overarching principle is minimisation, and to set aside the RDAP and let registries/registrars
> deploy them on experimental basis and let the Next Gen PDP WG develop the rest.
>
> So perhaps a little bit more nuances before just endorsing (differentiated) access to the data immediately?
> Others may have spent more time on this issue and may know better...
>
> Desiree
> --
>
> On 18 Mar 2016, at 11:48, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it’s a great comment, and support the NCSG endorsing it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Marilia Maciel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Wendy. Others? Just reminding everyone that the deadline is today, 23:59 UTC.
>>> Best wishes
>>> M
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Wendy Seltzer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I support endorsing the IAB comment.
>>>
>>> --Wendy
>>>
>>> On 03/17/2016 01:53 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>> Hi James, thanks for the clarifications you provided.
>>>>
>>>> Based on this information and considering the little time we have, the
>>>> question seems to be: should NCSG endorse IAB's comment on RDAP? It would
>>>> be great if our members, specially those in our policy committee, could
>>>> share their views on the next hours.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Marília
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Shane Kerr <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> At 2016-03-17 09:22:34 +0100
>>>>> Shane Kerr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure the NCUC necessarily needs to have an opinion about the
>>>>>> technology itself, and can happily wait and weigh in on the parts that
>>>>>> matter to us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I meant NCSG. I blame decaffeinated coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Shane
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marília Maciel
>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>>>
>>>
>
|
