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/ > >> > >> > >