<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
- Subject: Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:43:37 -0400
A Commercial/Non-commercial declaration is problematic because it
requires an application of the policy to judge intent. A judgement of
intent is a subjective measure that will, almost by definition, impose
undue costs and burdens on a significant portion of the user and supply
community.
I am not familiar with EY privacy legislation, nor that it is a premise
for making a change to ICANN policy. However, I have been lead to
understand that the extension of privacy rights in many countries is
extended on the basis of whether or not the entity in question is a
legal or natural person, and not what their commercial intent is.
Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) wrote:
I do agree that web site content and other uses of registered domain
names is not the scope of ICANN.
However, if EU legal privacy protection is the premise for making a
policy change in the domain name registration procedures and public
access to contact details of the registrants, then we must acknowledge
that the EU views privacy protection as a human right for individuals
and not for businesses. The self-declaration procedure that has been
proposed is not onerous or burdensome.
The company I work for has had occasion to register domain names in
advance of an acquisition or announcing a new brand, such as our most
recent one, Hotel Indigo. So I am very aware of various business
requirements in the registration procedure. I just do not see business
or commercial activity as eligible for privacy protection.
-Lynn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:02 PM
Cc: gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
Registration data is collected when users register domain names. Privacy
laws have an impact on how this data is treated. In many respects,
current whois policy is inconsistent with privacy legislation, therefore
policy must be reviewed and evolved. This is the context, this is why
public access to whois data must change.
How people use and publish web sites, run mail servers, etc. are not
issues that ICANN can take up.
Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) wrote:
My understanding is that the need to comply with privacy laws is the
basis for even considering a policy change.
This was supposedly why the current public access to all Whois data
was going to changed.
And if we are going to consider privacy laws, they must be viewed in
context.
-Lynn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:50 AM
Cc: gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
Lynn - ICANN is naturally limited to making policy related to the
registration of domain names and their function within the DNS. You
are proposing policy that extends beyond this scope by delving into
how various forms of content and intent affect consumers and consumer
behavior. This is naturally the area of government and national law,
not ICANN as a technical coordinator of the domain name system.
You are barking up a tree that the GNSO can't climb.
Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) wrote:
I still maintain that the distinction of commercial vs.
non-commercial
is important for data protection of consumers using the Internet.
Individuals or legal entities who engage in commercial activities
normally collect and process personally identifiable data.
As such, their contact information needs to be publicly available.
It is contrary to principles of good data privacy practices to
exclude
data protection for this significant group who does not seem to have
a
constituency representative in the current structure.
-Lynn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--
*From:* owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Tim Ruiz
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:03 AM
*To:* Paul Stahura
*Cc:* Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG); Chris Gibson; Maria Farrell;
gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
Nor do I. The last thing we need are more policies that ICANN not
only
doesn't enforce, but actually can't. And I question the statement
that
some registrars are verifying such a distinction. If so, I would
think
there should be some examples - the specific registrars who are doing
it and how they are doing it.
Also, I think the changes that Lynn and Chris are suggesting do not
accurately represent the level of support and/or agreement of the
group.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
From: "Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 30, 2007 9:58 am
To: "Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)" <Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx>, "Chris
Gibson" <cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Maria Farrell"
<maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx>
I do not believe a distinction should be made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*From:* Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) [mailto:Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:31 AM
*To:* Chris Gibson; Maria Farrell; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
I would just like to add a comment that I feel these revisions
help
achieve the balance needed to win a broad consensus of support.
Some members have not been as vocal in our discussions and I do
not
have a sense of whether the majority of the group is in
agreement.
Since we did not have a teleconference today, is it possible to
have
some kind of quick informal poll?
Regards,
-Lynn Goodendorf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--
*From:* Chris Gibson [mailto:cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:12 AM
*To:* 'Chris Gibson'; 'Maria Farrell'; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
*Cc:* Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)
*Subject:* RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
Sorry for the duplication - this message has the document
attached.
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*From:* owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Chris Gibson
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:04 AM
*To:* 'Maria Farrell'; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
*Cc:* 'Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)'
*Subject:* RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
Dear All,
I have attached the draft final report for sub-group C with some
revisions marked in red-line, which Lynn Goodendorf and I
propose.
We believe these suggested changes are helpful to improve some of
the writing, accuracy and balance of the report.
Thanks,
Chris Gibson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*From:* owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Maria
Farrell
*Sent:* Friday, May 25, 2007 2:12 PM
*To:* gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
Dear all,
Attached is the Final Report of Sub Group C, prepared by its
chair,
Jon Bing.
We agreed on this week's call to discuss any further - hopefully
minor - changes to the report using this mailing list rather than
on
a conference call.
So please review this draft and circulate any comments on it to
this
list. Please do use 'track changes' mode if you suggest changes
to
the document.
We should expect to finalise this report next week and submit it
to
the Working Group. I will also be adding some basic information
to
it about membership of the group and attendance.
All the best, Maria
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|