[gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0429 draft
I have attached a draft incorporating Carlton's changes and adding a comment to his comment, and following most of Steve's edits. I realize that I am violating the "deal with only what is" caveat, but I do want to address the draft RAA. The proposed amendments concerning privacy conflict do apply only to collection and retention. However, two other sections might apply. 3.2.1 Alternate Data Elements has a number of change related to registrars and registries being able to specify, with ICANN approval, publication of a set of Whois data elements that is not the norm. A question might be raised whether such an agreement could be used to limit what is published if the Rr and Ry agree about data protection issues. I think that such an argument would be a stretch, especially since the new language strikes me as more of a clarification rather than an amendment. 3.3.1 Port 43 services are now required from registrars only in thin registries. For the sake of argument, and noting that I blanked on why we talked about Port 43 on a call, could we conclude that data protection levels would be different in thin vs thick registries? If so, should we mention the potential amendment in a footnote? I will send this version to Mikey, with a note that we have some pending issues that will be resolved by next week. I'm not sure that we have enough likely callers to make a call worthwhile this week. I will call in if anybody wants to participate in a working session concerning a new draft that may appear magically tomorrow night or Monday morning. However, I will ask only for a phone line rather than have a formal subteam call. I hope that the ATRT gods aren't cringing. 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 > Attachment:
DPP Report draft 0429.docx
|