ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Addition to Privacy summary
  • From: "Prosser, Susan" <susan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:31:40 -0700

I am fine with draft produced by Don and the summary Alan created.  I
understand Amr and Ray's concern.  It may be best to remove the summary
from the document.

Amr, to your point, I believe the draft addresses the greater issue of data
protection. The Conclusion section, under Data Protection Laws, it draws
the point that Thick Whois models are in existence, rightly or wrongly.  To
address the issue of data protection, we advise ICANN to explore the issue
in more detail.  It is not discounting there is a concern.  But, that it
must be addressed by ICANN.  That is how I interpret the document.


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I am personally comfortable with the statement drafted by Don and edited
> by others on the sub-team. I also feel that Alan's statement, although not
> necessarily a representative summary of the statement, is spot-on on
> several points (e.g.: concerns about privacy both existing and future, the
> position of the registrar SG, existing registry policy and the newly
> amended RAA providing more flexibility, as well as the WG proceeding with
> its recommendation).
> I am, however, not in agreement that our deliberations have resulted in
> the conclusion that these concerns are unrelated to "whether a thick or
> thin Whois model is being used". That is, IMHO, the core concern with
> privacy issues whether we're referring to the transition of .com/.net from
> thin to thick Whois, or new gTLDs in the future for which there will
> potentially be new jurisdictions, new registrants and new Whois data being
> published.
> I am personally fine leaving the summary out. If included, I simply feel
> that it would be a good idea to drop the quoted sentence above. At this
> point, I am leaning more towards leaving the summary out altogether. I'm
> guessing there will be a sort of summary with the draft recommendations of
> the WG as a whole, anyway.
> I, of course, welcome the thoughts and opinions of other members of the
> sub-team and WG.
> Thanks.
> Amr
> On May 14, 2013, at 5:48 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.)

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy