Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection"

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i am cautious about this idea.  it seems to me that we run the risk of massive 
scope increase if we interpret the rights/jurisdiction conversation as one that 
has to address *all* thick registries (existing and new) in addition to the 
those issues in the *transition* of a thin registry to thick.  i think it's 
appropriate to have an "effects of transition from thin to thick" conversation 
(and i'm growing more comfortable that either version of the language will work 
for that), but i need a lot of convincing when it comes to the "every 
registry/registrar/registrant" scope definition.  

this thread is also starting to border on *doing* the work of the WG rather 
than just *defining* the work of the WG.  i'm weighing in because of the scope 
issue that i think this raises, but i'm also trying to leave the "real work" 
until the WG is formed.   so let's try to stick to revising charter language 
and leave analysis for another day.

thanks,

mikey


On Oct 15, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> In sense though ww will also be talking about how thick whois is to be done 
> by all registries. 
> Both in the new gTLDs and the incumbents, even those already doing thick.  
> So this affects every Registry, every Registrar and every Registrant.
> 
> And there are, in my view, jurisdictional implications in Thick Whois that 
> are different from Thin Whois.  Most of these center around the fact that 
> once the Registry also has the Whois info as opposed to just the Registrar, 
> people in Canada, e.g., no longer have the data privacy, consumer etc rights 
> they have in Canada, because someone can base demands etc on the laws of the 
> Registry's country of business as well.    
> 
> avri
> 
> On 14 Oct 2012, at 07:38, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Of course those same countries have consumer protection laws, the 
>> enforcement of which rely on identifying the offender. The _use_ of the data 
>> should certainly be subject to national law but the collection and 
>> verification is necessary as a baseline. That said, I don't believe THIS PDP 
>> is a referendum on Thick Whois but more of a discussion on parity amongst 
>> registries, the rest of whom have implemented it.  I think it will be 
>> difficult to make a "rights" argument that only .COM and .NET should have 
>> thin whois.  The notion of thick whois was discussed a great deal in the 
>> context of the guidebook and it can certainly be discussed again but it 
>> doesn't seem to me that this limited PDP is the place to discuss it.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 11:31 PM
>> To: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT
>> Cc: Joy Liddicoat
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on 
>> "privacy and data protection"
>> 
>> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> Some are international law not aspirational at all.
>> And it is time ICANN, which wishes to operate on the International stage, 
>> starts to give some respect and adherence to these laws.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 13 Oct 2012, at 16:26, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> With few exceptions, these are aspirational, which cannot be our mandate. 
>>> We can certainly discuss impact on "legally established rights."  I think 
>>> it would be far more productive, and helpful, however,  to frame the 
>>> discussion in terms of relative protections.
>>> 
>>> Jonathan
>>> 
>>> On Oct 13, 2012, at 4:10 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 13 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Hoover, Carolyn wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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?
>>>> 
>>>> There are varied sources.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> As In anything defined in International Law, there are various sources.  
>>>> Yet that facts does not lessen the importance of considering them.  We may 
>>>> decide at some point that there is isn't an impact, but the question needs 
>>>> to be asked.
>>>> 
>>>> This is just a quick accumulation of references.  We can certainly 
>>>> undertake to produce a set of quotes from International sources that 
>>>> implicitly give the definition.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The rights are defined in several International covenants.
>>>> 
>>>> From the Universal Declaration of Human rights 
>>>> <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>
>>>> 
>>>> Article 19.
>>>> 
>>>> * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right 
>>>> includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, 
>>>> receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless 
>>>> of frontiers.
>>>> 
>>>> Article 17.
>>>> 
>>>> * (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in 
>>>> association with others.
>>>> * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
>>>> 
>>>> Article 20.
>>>> 
>>>> * (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and 
>>>> association.
>>>> * (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
>>>> 
>>>> From the  Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
>>>> <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm>  (this one is binding on 
>>>> the countries that singed it)
>>>> 
>>>> Article 17
>>>> 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference 
>>>> with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on 
>>>> his honour and reputation.
>>>> 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such 
>>>> interference or attacks.
>>>> 
>>>> Article 19:
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right 
>>>> shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and 
>>>> ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or 
>>>> in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
>>>> 
>>>> Article 22:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with 
>>>> others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the 
>>>> protection of his interests.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the 
>>>> International Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning 
>>>> Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to 
>>>> take legislative measures which would prejudice, or to apply the law 
>>>> in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that 
>>>> Convention
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Other references can be found in various national instruments:
>>>> 
>>>> e.g United States Bill of Rights, European Convention on Human Rights and 
>>>> the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Freedom of association is often know as Freedom of Assembly
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In the IGF, a coalistions defined them qas:  
>>>> <http://irpcharter.org/campaign/>
>>>> 
>>>> 4) EXPRESSION AND ASSOCIATION
>>>> Everyone has the right to seek, receive, and impart information freely on 
>>>> the Internet without censorship or other interference. Everyone also has 
>>>> the right to associate freely through and on the Internet, for social, 
>>>> political, cultural or other purposes.
>>>> 
>>>> 5) PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION
>>>> Everyone has the right to privacy online. This includes freedom from 
>>>> surveillance, the right to use encryption, and the right to online 
>>>> anonymity. Everyone also has the right to data protection, including 
>>>> control over personal data collection, retention, processing, disposal and 
>>>> disclosure.
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)