Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:54:59 +0100 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
+ 1 Avri and Tatiana
On 6/1/2016 9:47 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> + 1 to Avri,
> I think this is my problem with this public comment draft (and I left
> several comments about this in the doc). We do need more, but some of
> the issues require more time for elaboration. I don't think we can
> criticise ICANN for the fact that we haven't got more yet, when the
> document we are commenting on says that the work is in progress.
> So agree with the positive comment that will say that it's good start
> but there is definitely an important work to be done further.
> Cheers
> Tanya
>
> On 1 June 2016 at 19:24, avri doria <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> On 31-May-16 15:58, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > From what I can read, I would not support the proposed policy.
>
> I find myself agreeing with the comment that we will eventually need
> something more.
> And I think that RFC7704 is a good model.
>
> But I think getting into that issue before we resolve wider
> accountability issues WS2 (e.g. ombudsman, or SOAC accountabity)
> of the
> CCWG-Accountabity is impracticable. I would suggest a statement
> that
> said good start, lets go with this for now, and determine after WS2,
> perhaps in next ATRT, whether more needs to be done. Some element
> of the
> issue could probably also feed into WS2 work.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: [log in to unmask] | T: +44.771.247.2987
|
|
|