ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0423 draft report

  • To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0423 draft report
  • From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:39:01 -0400


Thanks very much for the edits. We need to review the comments from
Carlton and from somebody else who promised off the list to send them
tomorrow. I will distribute to the full WG tomorrow if the last submission
comes in early enough. Next week for certain.


On 4/29/13 7:17 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>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
>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 

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy