ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0423 draft report
  • From: Marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:26:54 -0600

Hello  Don,

I will also submit my comments tomorrow.  I'll be able to make it for our 
Wednesday call.



Enviado desde mi iPad

El 29/04/2013, a las 17:39, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx> escribió:

> Steve,
> 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.
> Don
> 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
>> 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

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy