Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] Issues for Today

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Never mind!  Gisella just pointed out that although I had dialed in 
on the hour, it was the wrong hour!

At 20/02/2013 03:05 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Is this call on today?  No pone elese on Adobe except Gisella who 
> has not yet answered my messages and on adigo "waiting for the 
> subscriber" on code 3429.
> Alan
>
> At 20/02/2013 02:54 PM, Don Blumenthal wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > My day was derailed further by a family medical issue. I had hoped 
> > to synthesize the public comments further than in the staff summary 
> > and also raise some questions worth pursuing that I saw in the NCUC 
> > materials, but won't get through it.
> > I'll limit myself to suggesting some threshold topics to cover 
> > today. Some came up last week but weren't addressed because of the 
> > call's free form. Order isn't important. Please feel free to add.
> > 1) What is our scope? Perhaps we should spend a few minutes looking 
> > at the WG's charter. In addition though, and just as a for 
> > instance, do we address issues that exist already with respect to 
> > thick vs thin or that exist regardless of the Whois context? We 
> > probably will have to, especially with regard to the first issue, 
> > because I'm hard pressed to think of something that would apply 
> > only prospectively. IN case you haven't looked at it recently, here 
> > is the link to the Charter. 
> > https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/3.+WG+Charter. The page 
> > also has a URL for the staff Thick Whois report, which has some 
> > relevant points.
> > 2) Will we limit ourselves to the comments or do additional research?
> > 3) How much research or analysis should we engage in? To take one 
> > of the documents from Ray as one example, are we in a position to 
> > question statements of the Article 29 working group or suggest that 
> > they don't apply? If the Article 29 opinion is determinative, do we 
> > also canvas other parts of the world or other international 
> > agreements such as APEC, or is the conflict point made sufficiently?
> > 4) Should we look at issues related to third party data handlers 
> > and service providers?
> > 5) Along with #3, can we analyze the effectiveness of laws and 
> > regulations? The EU Safe Harbor law, again a focus of the NCUC 
> > materials, is a case in point. As an alumnus of the US agency that 
> > ostensibly has the power to enforce it, I have a background and 
> > definite opinions on its value.
> > FYI, I heard back from Dan Halloran in the GC's office. He did not 
> > know if the Whois conflict mechanism has been used but promised to 
> > forward my questions to the appropriate folks who work with 
> > registrars and registries. I haven't had responses to inquiries 
> > about the puntCAT RSEP.
> > Talk to you at 4.
> >
> > Don