RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection"
Avri, Are these the 3 rights described in some place where the description is generally accepted as valid? In other words, would the working group have to define these or has this already been done? Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 2:56 PM To: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" Hi, I am sorry to hear that you consider the Impact of Rights a distraction. However, the PDP process mandates that rights impact analysis be done. So this amendment is making explicit something that the new PDP process requires. Privacy is only one of the rights that needs to be protected. And Privacy rights only pertain to individuals, while the Freedom of Association pertains to associations of individuals, which are also subject to WHOIS and often exclude from protections since they are not natural persons. avri On 13 Oct 2012, at 14:27, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > On 13 October 2012 12:16, Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just seems like a discussion of "rights" is fraught with pitfalls given the time it will take to define them worldwide. Shouldn't we be focused on the delta of privacy protection? > > > > +1 > > I am against the amendment as proposed. There will already be an addressing of rights in the core doc. The proposed revision adds little except an invitation to further distraction on an issue that has already dragged on too long. > > - Evan > > > > > > > From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 11:33 AM > To: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT > Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" > > > > hi all, > > Avri wasn't able to make the last-minute-Monday call to hammer on this last remaining issue. she and i visited a bit about this yesterday and came up with the following amendment to one of our bullets. > > i view this as a friendly amendment in that is does a better job of defining the "container" for the "rights" discussion in our charter. yes, it's a bit broader, but i don't think it's *that* much broader and it does a good job of clarifying the issue i was trying to push us through too quickly on the last "normal" call. > > sorry about the late-breaking news. i'd be really interested to hear from people who have a violent reaction. as i said, i think this a modest and helpful clarification of the charter topic. > > mikey > > > Current language: > > > > Impact on privacy and data protection: how would 'thick' Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? > > > > Proposed language: > > Impact on rights: how would 'thick' Whois affect rights such as Privacy, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association as well as adherence to data protection regulations, taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? > > > > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > > > > > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch > Toronto Canada > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 >