ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Addition to Privacy summary
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:39:39 -0400

The summary (and latest addition) were just done to try to move things forward. I have no problem scrapping it or changing it, but I do believe that we need a GO or NO-GO conclusion for this section.


At 14/05/2013 11:21 AM, Don Blumenthal 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.


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.)


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.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy