ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0429 draft

  • To: "gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0429 draft
  • From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:39:51 -0400

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.



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 

Attachment: DPP Report draft 0429.docx
Description: DPP Report draft 0429.docx

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy