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

["Balleste, Roy" <rballeste@xxxxxxx>]

I support leaving it out.

Roy


From: owner-gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike 
O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:48 AM
To: Don Blumenthal
Cc: gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] 
Addition to Privacy summary

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<mailto: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>
 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)