ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois]


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

[gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0423 draft report

  • To: "gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0423 draft report
  • From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:17:42 +0000

Don and colleagues, 

The attached document contains three or four small edits that are reflected in 
my notes of our most recent call but that did not make it into Don's 4/23 
revised draft. It also corrects a few typos.  

With regard to the point reflected in Don's embedded comment on the next to 
last page:  I don't think we need any more detailed analysis in this paper of 
the changes included in the proposed 2013 RAA released last week.   I say that 
for three reasons: first, the new proposed RAA  provision that Marika excerpted 
in an earlier e-mail deals only with conflicts with respect to collection or 
retention of data (and extends well beyond Whois data), and does not address 
conflicts with respect to publication of Whois data:  these remain subject to 
the existing procedure that is cited in Don's draft, even if the new RAA 
language is adopted unchanged.  Second, by its nature anything in the RAA 
applies only to registrars; and the move from thin to thick Whois -- our 
assignment --  is a change in obligations for registries only.  It's correct 
that treatment of this issue is relevant to our broader recommendation that 
occupies the last few pages of the draft, but to me this distinction 
underscores that this recommendation may in fact take us beyond our remit.  
Finally, purely as a practical matter, the text of the new RAA will not become 
final until June at the earliest, and we certainly don't want to delay this 
report, as part of the overall contribution to the Working Group's work 
product, for another month or two.  

Thanks again to Don for an excellent job in pulling together the disparate 
views.    

Can we move this up to the next (full WG) level this week?  

Steve Metalitz 

Attachment: DPP Report draft 0423 w-redlines SJM 0429 (5284655).DOCX
Description: DPP Report draft 0423 w-redlines SJM 0429 (5284655).DOCX



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy