Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Addition to Privacy summary

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

it's never too late.  if the group is more comfortable with the draft as they 
developed it, leaving the summary aside, that's fine with me.

m

On May 14, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> To the subteam list.
>  
> I’m having second thoughts about the wisdom of doing a summary but I guess 
> it’s too late. Sometimes summaries can create more contention about whether 
> they accurately reflect a document than the document itself generated. I 
> understand the concept that the report is in the full WG now but I think that 
> we had two conversations going this morning, at least based on what I saw in 
> the chat and what little I could hear.
>  
> 1)      Is the summary a fair description of the paper?
> 2)      Was the paper right or wrong?
>  
> I’ve been a bit scarce because of travel, as always, and two major hard stop 
> deadlines tomorrow. I’ll be able to reengage on Thursday but as a quick 
> comment, I have no problem with statement about unease but I’m not clear 
> about the meaning of the “not translated” part. As a point of clarification, 
> the formal procedures for resolving data protection conflicts apply to both 
> registries and registrars. The new RAA only changes the threshold for raising 
> issues. As an aside, I expect from side conversations to see comments 
> suggesting that the draft language be amended to include data publication 
> rather than just collection and retention.
>  
> Don
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:01 AM
> To: Thick Whois WG
> Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Addition to Privacy summary
>  
> Although Mikey assigned the first gauntlet to Amr, I had already drafted 
> something while we were speaking, so I will toss it out here in case it is 
> applicable. It is in BOLD BLUE below. (which I hope the mailing list will not 
> delete.)
> 
> Alan
> 
> Summary of Thick Whois PDP WG Data Protection and Privacy Paper
> 
> There are currently issues with respect to privacy related to Whois, and 
> these will only grow in the future. Those issues apply to other gTLDs as 
> well, and thus will need to be addressed by ICANN. Existing Registry policy 
> and practice allows flexibility when needed, and the new draft RAA provides 
> similar options for registrars. None of these issues seem to be related to 
> whether a thick or thin Whois model is being used. The support of the 
> Registrar Stakeholder Group related to a thin-to-thick transition implies 
> that they perceive no immediate issue. There are still WG participants who 
> feel uneasy with the vast amounts of data that will need to be transferred 
> across jurisdictional boundaries, but those have not translated into concrete 
> concerns. So although privacy issues may become a substantive issue in the 
> future, and should certainly be part of the investigation of a replacement 
> for Whois, it is not a reason to not proceed with this PDP WG recommending 
> thick Whois for all.


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)