<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Expert Working Group questions on behalf of the BC
- To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [council] Expert Working Group questions on behalf of the BC
- From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:44:37 -0700
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: MailAPI
Jonathan, et. al.,
I know we were asked in London by Chris Disspain to raise questions about the
report of the Expert Working Group before the Board makes an official PDP
request of the GNSO Council. At the time, it was clear that a financial
analysis of implementing the recommendations had not been done/completed.
Neither do we have as detailed a sense of the legal implications of those
recommendations. These are two questions that ought to be answered.
Since London, there has been discussion among the members of the BC about the
report. Out of that have come these additional questions:
As large and well-populated as the group was, now that the broadest community
has seen the report, are there use cases that the EWG did not consider?
Is the data map complete?
While ICANN has assiduously maintained its neutrality when it comes to online
content, as the Internet and is uses has evolved, should there not be a domain
name record field to distinguish domains used for commercial purposes?
Do we have adequate mechanisms for handling compliance issues than may arise
among the multiple players (e.g., validators, credentials providers, RDS
vendor)?
Right now the data will be accessed from multiple repositories; should it be
centralized?
How can the implementation of the recommendations be best segmented and
scheduled?
Will the progress ICANN is making in accommodating local laws, particularly
with regard to data protection and privacy, serve as a model for handling such
conflict that might arise from the EWG recommendations?
Cheers,
Berard
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|