ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-dow123] Re: Citation in IPC background paper

  • To: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-dow123] Re: Citation in IPC background paper
  • From: "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:22:33 -0500

Thank you for making this correction. This is, however, a trivial matter.
My concern about the "Backgrounder" circulated by the IP constituency is the citation of the EC document as support for the proposition that the EC is in favor of public availability of private personal data. In the recent teleconference, I cited, from the same EC document, the following:
??it is essential to limit the amount of personal data to be collected and processed.?
?The registration of domain names by individuals raises different legal considerations than that of companies or other legal persons registering domain names.?
?In the light of the proportionality principle, it is necessary to look for less intrusive methods that would still serve the purpose of the Whois directories without having all data directly available on-line to everybody.?
?The Working Party encourages ICANN and the Whois community to look at privacy enhancing ways to run the Whois directories in a way that serves its original purpose whilst protecting the rights of individuals. It should in any case be possible for individuals to register domain names without their personal details appearing on a publicly available register.?
[emphasis in original]

I said in the teleconference that the IP Constituency has distorted the views of the EC and that the "Backgrounder" is deceptive. For that reason, I suggest that the IP Constituency withdraw the Backgrounder as part of the record of this proceeding..
At 05:39 PM 8/16/2005, Steven J. Metalitz IIPA wrote:

I understand that on last Tuesday's Whois Task Force call you pointed out an error in a citation in the IPC background paper regarding the purposes of Whois. I appreciate your pointing out the new URL for the Art. 29 working party paper cited in our background report at footnote 15. Our footnote linked to a URL at the European Commission internal market directorate, where data protection activities were formerly housed. (This was the URL given numerous times in the appendix to the 2004 TF2 report prepared by Kathy Kleiman.) As you probably know, in a recent bureaucratic re-shuffle, these activities were transferred to the Justice and Home affairs directorate. While the old URL for the data protection unit remained active until sometime within the last month or so, it has since been shut down, and the paper can now best be accessed through the URL you provided and which is reflected in the draft minutes. Evidently we failed to check to see if the page accessed during the drafting of the background paper was still active at the moment ithe paper was submitted (actually, it may have still been, but clearly is no longer). In any case, we will circulate an erratum to reflect this bureaucratic shift within the Commission and the resulting change in URL.

Steve Metalitz

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:31 PM
To: Ross Rader
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Secretariat
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]

I have reviewed the minutes but not the recording. I understand the question, but it may be that we disagree that the only options are to proceed full steam ahead or bring the recommendation to a halt.

The substance of my point is that reversal of notice provisions which are currently in the agreement was not part of the task force terms of reference. Thus, I'm uncomfortable with the approach of making a request to put this issue before the task force, given the work load we already have tasked to us.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:18 PM
To: Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]


Hash: SHA1

On 16/08/2005 11:57 AM Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie) noted that;

> I would say that any time an issue is raised after a final

> recommendation that attempts to reverse a task force proposal, without

> advance notice, without adequate opportunity for input by the

> constituencies, and legal opinions of individuals who are not on the

> task force and who did not comment on the recommendation are invoked as

> a basis for reversal, there is bound to be confusion.  So yes, I guess

> we can agree there is some confusion here.

I don't think anyone is looking for a reversal of these recommendations

- - at least I'm not. I'm simply requesting, based on comments made by

members of your constituency and others, that the GNSO seek to

understand the implications of its actions prior to implementation.

I'm not sure if you have reviewed the recording or transcripts of our

call or not, but there is no hidden agenda here. I have questions and

I'm seeking answers. Until we have those answers, I don't think it's

responsible for us to proceed full steam ahead.

- --


Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross

Skydasher: A great way to start your day

My weblog: http://www.byte.org


Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)





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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy