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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Alan

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.
> 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.