ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0429 draft

  • To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0429 draft
  • From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:56:53 -0400


Thanks for your thoughts. I agree on the idea of noting ongoing ICANN 
developments although stressing that they were not part of our conclusions.

Note to all. I promised a final version for next week's full WG call, so the 
pressure is on. :)


From: Carlton Samuels 
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:49 AM
To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx<mailto:dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] 0429 draft

Dear Don:
I have made some comments on yours inline.


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799<tel:876-818-1799>
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Don Blumenthal 
<dblumenthal@xxxxxxx<mailto:dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
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.

+1.  In addition, it appears designed to accommodate developments as outlined 
in the Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies Specifications

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?

Yes, I think you're right here.

If so, should we

mention the potential amendment in a footnote?

Yes, to telegraph that we noticed and for clarity.

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<mailto: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