Looks good. AS to Avri's point, this will not come as a surprise to the
Registrars. I have underscored it consistently as one of the few
successes of the EWG report, the concept of differentiated access and
data minimization.
cheers Stephanie
On 2016-03-18 10:46, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear all, following the support on the list, I have put together the
> following short and sweet text and have called for consensus on it.
> Any suggestions?
>
> Comments from the Non-commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) on the
> public comment period related to the "Registration Data Access
> Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars"
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the
> Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLD
> Registries and Registrars.
>
> NCSG would like to give support to the points that have been raised by
> the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) in their contribution to this
> consultation, which can be found at:
> https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/msg00001.html
>
> Particularly, the NCSG would like to stress the importance of
> specifying the RDAP Profile in a way that leavesthe broadest range of
> options to the PDP on next-generation gTLD registration directory
> services from a policy perspective.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marília
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Matthew Shears <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Good thought Desiree. Others?
>
>
> On Friday, 18 March 2016, Desiree Miloshevic
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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
> <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -
> http://www.politics.org.br/
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *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 <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>
>
|
