ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

AW: [council] Motion

  • To: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: AW: [council] Motion
  • From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:57:48 +0200
  • Accept-language: de-DE
  • Acceptlanguage: de-DE
  • In-reply-to: <02a001cd4488$0eb92c70$2c2b8550$@ipracon.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E44A5A8@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <02a001cd4488$0eb92c70$2c2b8550$@ipracon.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQJNql0euts0GAWMz6hQIjsAKgHswpXtuWswgAA3PrA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] Motion

Hi Jonathan,


 1.
it was the RAP WGs intention rather than mine to "determine what additional 
research and processes may be needed to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in 
an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion", and that's 
still valid. The council so far took several actions, e.g. allocating the item 
to the WhoIs survey working team. This team just didn't see the item being in 
its scope. That doesn't mean the item - as intended by the RAG WG - is 
finished. So the council should search for different approach e.g. covering it 
with the RAA PDP.
 2.
It should be discussed whether the RAA PDP is the right way to do so taking 
also into consideration the respective timeline. Any purposeful alternativ 
suggestions welcome!




Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2012 10:32
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [council] Motion

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

This is something that we discussed at our SG meeting today.  We are expect to 
ask for a deferral in part because the situation with the RAA still contains 
many moving parts.

There are two key areas which we would very much appreciate further 
clarification and detail through discussion or on the list as follows:


1.       As clear as possible definition or specification on what you intend to 
achieve with the WHOIS access

2.       A better understanding of what is meant by the reference to the RAA 
PDP.
This seems to imply that the entire RAA may be the subject of a PDP whereas 
clearly there are parts of the RAA that are and parts that are not subject to 
the PDP.

Many thanks for any comment or input you are able to provide either on list or 
in the meeting itself.

Best wishes,



Jonathan

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 30 May 2012 16:31
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Motion

On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to introduce the motion attached 
to the 07 June council meeting.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>