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:
Ayden Férdeline |