Hi Stefania, Thanks for inviting our comments on the proposal for an RDS review with a limited scope. I have attached to this email the only proposal I have seen to date - I am not sure if it is the same one you referred to (the link is not working for me, sadly) - so please forgive me if it is not, as my reply may not be too helpful. My view on the attached proposal, informed only by 12 months of following the continued evolution of the RDS (I note this to stress that I am hardly a subject matter expert), is that I do not support this proposal. There are many legitimate reasons to consider a more limited scope, particularly when there are ongoing and overlapping exercises concerning the future of the RDS, but I think a broader remit and a more diverse Review team would serve ICANN better. There is certainly value in having a Review team filled with those with a strong understanding of how policy is set within ICANN, and with a deep knowledge of the historical evolution of WHOIS policy and the operational issues which effect those tasked with implementing it. That said, I find it problematic limiting membership to those who “have either participated in, or tracked closely, the 1st Review Team’s Recommendations”, as it suggests to me that we want a similar outcome to the first review rather than a fresh pair of sufficiently-qualified eyes re-reading relevant material and drawing fact-based conclusions. This, in my opinion, is inconsistent with the idea of the Affirmation of Commitments being a framework for keeping ICANN accountable, transparent, and operating in the global public interest. Finally, the suggestion that, “work be conducted and completed more quickly than normal” suggests to me that the Review Team would be asked to rush and to rubber stamp recommendations, when the complexity of WHOIS policy which has confronted both the ICANN community and ICANN the organisation have presented a series of serious challenges and conflicts among economical, political, and legal lines. In my opinion it would be useful and important in the evaluation ahead for the Review team to proceed slowly and cautiously. These are just my thoughts. I look forward to hearing what others think of this forthcoming Review, and hope very much we see more NCSG members coming forward to submit their candidature for the Review team. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [urgent] feedback needed re: scope of Registry Directory Service Review (Team) Local Time: 15 December 2016 7:39 PM UTC Time: 15 December 2016 19:39 From: [log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask] Dear all I would like to draw your attention to a discussion currently ongoing within the GNSO council, and concerning the Registration Directory Services (RDS, ex WHOIS) Review. A document describing a proposed limited scope for the forthcoming RDS Review was sent to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) of ICANN back in November, but did not receive much attention to date. Councilors are now expected to bring back to the Council list feedback on the proposal. The document in question can be found here: https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfh3K9ucZUtx.pdf It would be great to get some conversation going on this topic. Please read (it is only one page!) and give us a sense of what you would like to see happening here, especially concerning the proposed limited scope of the Review Team, and the need to make sure that there is no duplication of work done in Policy Development Processes, PDP (namely the ongoing RDS PDP). And by the way, there is a call for volunteers for the review team, now open till January 13 (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-10-28-en). Do consider applying if you have some expertise on the subject matter (see also (see also https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63145785). A summary of the Council meeting, as resolved in September, is under way (I am the councilor responsible for this time round), and will be posted to this list after the weekend at the latest. Best, Stefi ---------------------- Stefania Milan, PhD University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl || Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I) stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850 EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.