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/ > >