Hello, all- Thank you to all who have commented in this thread. I have been trying to get up to speed on this topic today and have found your comments to be an extremely useful primer — and a special thank you to Amr for clarifying that we actually have two different topics out for public comment (though the distinction between the two still isn't entirely clear to me, nor is the distinction between the acronyms 'RDDS' and 'RDS' which seem to be used in similar contexts by different stakeholders). From what I have heard about the history of WHOIS/RDS/RDDS systems, the community has invested significant resources over the past two decades only to achieve minimal change. We now have the Next-Generation Registration Directory Service PDP working group where we have the capacity to make real, meaningful recommendations. Why, then, would we respond to either of these consultations which could prejudice the working group's capacity to comprehensively reform how and when domain name registration data is collected and shared? (I feel like this question has been asked by someone else but I cannot remember who — apologies for the lack of attribution.) If we were to comment — and I know that Marília has said we are not in a position to do so today because we do not quite have consensus, and I would like to echo that stance because I don't think we should be responding out of principle to either of these consultations — I'd like to add on to what Sana said by suggesting that we lay out our stance on minimisation in two respects: firstly, on data, and secondly, on the use of community resources ;-) . To the former this has been hammered home by quite a few respondents, and I particularly liked how Antoin Verschuren (a registrar) in his submission implied if the registrar registration expiration date was to be stored in the open registration directory service, what could be next - the registrant's credit card expiry date? There has to be a limit somewhere and a move to make data in the registrar-registrant contract, public, is not the path I would want us to be going down. The less data collected the better, in my view. To the second point on community resources, if we have two topics so similar out for public comment (and from reading the submitted comments, it seems quite a few respondents are treating them as one and the same), perhaps they could have been amalgamated in the first place? And why are we even discussing these issues when we have over 100 community members actively participating in the Next-Generation RDS PDP working group? I hope we are not living a skit from Yes Minister where a WG has been formed merely to go through the 'charade of discussions'… I hope I am not contributing to any confusion here with my comments. I just wanted to put it on the record within our mailing list at least that I don't think we need to be responding to either of these consultations given the activities being explored by the Next-Generation RDS PDP working group. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Sana Ali < [log in to unmask] > wrote: Count my endorsement in for this. Perhaps we can include what our general stance is (minimization)? Thanks, Marilia. Sana On Mar 18, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Marilia Maciel < [log in to unmask] > 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 leaves the 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] > wrote: 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] > 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 >> 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 PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest