Be of good cheer Ayden, I find your questions to be perfectly relevant and sane. It is extremely frustrating to have these two separate PDPs lumbering forward as we start work on WHO2. And for the Registrars/Registries, who are being expected to build things by one PDP that are planned for obsolescence in the other PDP...well we can see why they were a bit grumpy in the open session in Marrakech. It is hard to keep up with this stuff. I think we are ok not commenting. We don't have the bandwidth to scurry around making the same points that have already been effectively made, however nice it might be to support our colleagues. The Charter of the WHO2 gives us plenty of leeway to change the policy despite what happened in these two PDPs, in my view, although we will not be able to roll back Thick WHOIS. Stephanie Perrin PS I think there is a valid distinction between RDS (registration data services) and RDDS (registration data *directory* services) but I am not sure that the two terms are used with that distinction in mind in most cases. As for the Yes Minister skit....too bad you missed the WHOIS conflicts with law working group. It was classic....worth listening to the recordings of our calls.... On 2016-03-18 19:30, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > 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 > <https://links2.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/ZXc5S4hTOO54Bm3LY?rn=gIVRURuIVWT5iVSV0UUNVSMB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI> > 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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 >> <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 >> <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 >> <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/ >> >> > > > > Ayden Férdeline > Statement of Interest > <https://links1.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/TUxALZrpRRQW6YhDs?rn=gIVRURuIVWT5iVSV0UUNVSMB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI> >