Good thought Desiree.  Others?

On Friday, 18 March 2016, 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] <javascript:;>>
> 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]
> <javascript:;>> 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]
> <javascript:;>> 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]
> <javascript:;>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> At 2016-03-17 09:22:34 +0100
> >>>> Shane Kerr <[log in to unmask] <javascript:;>> 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] <javascript:;>
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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/
> >>
> >>
>
>