ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "David Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>, "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-dow123] RE: Citation in IPC background paper
  • From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:52:24 -0400

Your posting below seems to be based on a misreading of the IPC
background paper.  We do not cite to the Article 29 Working Party paper
"as support for the proposition that the EC is in favor of public
availability of private personal data."  Our background paper does not
assert that proposition and we do not cite the Article 29 Working Party
paper for it.  Rather we quote from that paper an assertion it makes
about "the original purpose of the Whois database" and we explain why we
disagree with it.  The registry constituency has stated that it agrees
with the Working Party paper on this point and we would certainly be
interested to know its reasons for doing so.  Our reasons for
disagreeing are fully stated in the background paper.  
I do not agree with you that our paper "distorts the views of the EC."
It does not even present the views of the European Commission on the
issue of Whois.  (Nor can a paper of the Article 29 Working Party
accurately be characterized as containing the "views of the EC" on this
issue.) Rather the IPC background paper presents our analysis of the
European Union legal principles that may be applicable.  Of course you
may disagree with this analysis and I would certainly be interested in
the reasons why.   Needless to say we reject your characterization of
the background paper as "deceptive,"  and we have no intention of
withdrawing it.        
Steve Metalitz


From: David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:23 AM
To: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Secretariat
Subject: Re: Citation in IPC background paper 

Thank you for making this correction. This is, however, a trivial
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
"...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
"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
 [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 <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
        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
<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
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        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,
        > 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
        - - 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
        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
        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
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
        Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy