Re: [Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Who made the assertion about waiver of privacy rights?

I did. Well, sort of. It wasn't an assertion, but it was a recognition
of an emergent viewpoint that the policy proposal we have forwarded to
Council *may* constitute a waiver. I believe it is incumbent on us to
understand the implications of our recommendations before we make them.
In this case, it is clear that we do not as no one has been able to
definitely answer my original question regarding whether or not our
proposal creates the waiver described.

On 10/08/2005 11:37 AM GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx noted that;
> 
> Forwarded from Ryan Lehning on behalf of Steve Metalitz.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Metalitz
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:32 AM
> To: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx; Jordyn A. Buchanan
> Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation
> 
> 
> As one who was unable to join the call Tuesday I am somewhat mystified
> by this posting. Who made the assertion about waiver of privacy rights?
> If the question is sent back to us, would our terms of reference be
> changed? Where would this issue fit into our other priorities?  And what
> would it say about the TF if we asked to have back the only resolution
> that has successsfully completed our part of the PDP?  Is it impossible
> to bring anything to a conclusion in this TF?
> 
> (On a housekeeping note, maybe there is a problem with our list since I
> did not receive Jordyn's original message nor any call-in notice for
> Tuesday's call. Was one sent?)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Jordyn A. Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Whois TF mailing list <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tue Aug 09 18:39:23 2005
> Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation
> 
> 
> Jordyn - thanks for prepping this.
> 
> I believe we should stick to option a) solely. I'm not aware of any
> undertakings of this task force that would render a blanket waiver
> "moot". We should essentially be requesting that the Council provide
> this task force, or another GNSO body, with the opportunity to clarify
> our current work prior to its consideration as consensus policy. As it
> currently stands, the work has the potential to set a dangerous
> precedent that we should avoid implementing - even the status quo is
> preferable at this stage.
> 
> I'm sure with some new discussions that we can easily meet the
> objectives of the user community regarding clear notice without
> requiring them to give up additional rights.
> 
> On 09/08/2005 6:29 PM Jordyn A. Buchanan noted that;
> 
>>> As we discussed on today's call, a concern has been raised that the
>>> recommendation on Notice to registrants, currently before the Council,
> 
> 
>>> may be viewed as some kind of waiver of registrant's privacy  rights.
>>> This was not the intent of the recommendation, and not  something that
>>> we had originally considered within the task force.   As a result, we
>>> agreed on today's call that I would send a note to  Bruce and the
>>> Council requesting further consideration of this issue.
>>>
>>> Here's the request I propose to send.  Please let me know (quickly) if
> 
> 
>>> anyone believes this doesn't correctly reflect our agreement from the
>>> call today:
>>>
>>> Dear Bruce:
>>>
>>> In discussions of the Whois TF this week, a concern was raised that
>>> the current proposal relating to improving notice to registrants
>>> regarding the use of their contact details in the Whois system may be
>>> viewed as a waiver of registrants privacy rights.  It was not the
>>> intent of the task force that the recommendation act as any sort of
>>> waiver, but this was not an issue that we considered during the work
> 
> of the task force.
> 
>>> We do believe that this is an important issue,  however, and believe
>>> that it would be premature for the Council to  adopt the policy
>>> recommendations without considering it.  As a  result, I am writing to
> 
> 
>>> request that the Council either:
>>>
>>> a) Refer the recommendation back to the Task Force for further
>>> consideration of this specific issue; alternatively, the Council may
>>> want to consider this specific issue itself, or
>>>
>>> b) Delay adoption of this recommendation until such time as the full
>>> range of issues currently being considered by the task force have
>>> resulted in a broader set of recommendations that may render this
>>> issue moot.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jordyn A. Buchanan
>>> Chair, Whois TF
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                       -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
> Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: http://www.byte.org

- --






                      -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFC+iL+6sL06XjirooRAmtbAJwLHS4QEcU09PYyNKoQRRWLa/+EcACfa9Sm
e8kDN0iTK5eEgbs5EXVutXA=
=ykKn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----