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

[Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>]

I should have worked more quickly. :)

On 5/17/13 10:10 AM, "Balleste, Roy" <rballeste@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>Don,
>
>It is indeed a memorable name.  I take this opportunity to note that I
>support Mikey's modifications.
>As drafted, both options, now included in the conclusion, address the
>issues and raise the approtiate suggestions.
>
>Roy
>
>________________________________________
>From: owner-gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx
>[owner-gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Don
>Blumenthal [dblumenthal@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:52 AM
>To: gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] RE:
>[gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Addition to Privacy summary
>
>Hello from the Admiral Fell Inn at Fells Point in Baltimore. Really. I
>might have chosen a different word from "Inn" but it does make the name
>memorable.
>
>I agree with Alan that we need a definite conclusion but want to pinpoint
>reasons as part of a summary. With that in mind,
>Data protection and privacy policy issues exist with respect to Whois
>data, and potential conflicts with data protection regimes is likely to
>increase. However, those questions apply to existing gTLDs as well, and
>thus need to be addressed by ICANN in much more detail and perhaps with
>greater transparency than has existed before. Existing ICANN policies and
>procedures allow some level of flexibility with respect to accommodating
>potential legal conflicts, and indications are that this flexibility will
>increase. Therefore, given the number of existing and pending new gTLDs
>that use or will use a thick Whois model, the clear need for ICANN
>examination of data protection and privacy issues in the context of Whois
>data, and the likelihood that contracted party ability to address legal
>concerns will increase, the Working Group sees no need not to move ahead
>with future thick Whois registries based on data protection and privacy
>concerns.  A consistent approach to registry managem!
> ent has value.
>Some Working Group participants are uneasy with the vast amounts of data
>that would have to be transferred, especially across jurisdictional
>boundaries, if existing thin registries were required to change to thick.
>Registration data currently transfers among entities regularly but not on
>the scale that would occur if .com in particular had to move to a new
>framework. These concerns must be addressed fully in any security
>structures and data protection analyses that were to be done in planning
>a transition.
>Thoughts welcome, on the text or I guess the now open question of if we
>want to summarize. I had misunderstood the conversation that led to
>Alan's effort. I think that a blurb has value given the length of our
>section, especially in comparison to the other parts.
>
>Don
>
>From: Alan Greenberg
><alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>>
>Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:39 AM
>To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx<mailto:dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>>,
>"gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-dataprotection-thick
>whois@xxxxxxxxx>" 
><gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-dataprotection-thick
>whois@xxxxxxxxx>>
>Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg]
>Addition to Privacy summary
>
>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.
>
>I¹m having second thoughts about the wisdom of doing a summary but I
>guess it¹s 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?
>
>I¹ve been a bit scarce because of travel, as always, and two major hard
>stop deadlines tomorrow. I¹ll be able to reengage on Thursday but as a
>quick comment, I have no problem with statement about unease but I¹m not
>clear about the meaning of the ³not translated² 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@i
>cann.org> [ 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.
>
>
>
>