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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am at the same place; I cannot support a change in the language.

Broadly speaking, IMHO the change proposed tends to ignite 'scope creep'
for this drafting team.

More acutely, it raises the spectre embedded in the Orwellian dictum; 'all
animals are equal but some are more equal than others'.  It encourages
interpretations about which set of rights is 'right'.  This is surely a
worthy argument.  But for another time....and issue.

- Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> hi Susan,
>
> what??  too much emaill??  i loved Fadi's comment this morning on that
> topic…  :-)
>
> anyhow, here are the two versions:
>
> the 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?
>
>
> here's Avri's revised proposal;
>
> Impact on rights: how would ‘thick’ Whois specifically affect
> internationally agreed rights, e.g. rights of others, privacy, freedoms
> such as expression and 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?
>
>
> hope this helps,
>
> mikey
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Mikey,
>
> For clarity, can you post to the thread the language that is currently
> agreed upon in the charter that Avri would like to replace with this new
> language?  Sorry to ask you to do this but with the volume of email during
> a meeting I cannot seem to locate it.
>
>
> I am leaning toward this being to broad and I agree with you that we may
> be treading into the WG responsibilities but to be fair I would like to
> compare the two paragraphs.
>
>
>
> Susan Kawaguchi
> Domain Name Manager
> Facebook Legal Dept.
>
> Phone - 650 485-6064
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/15/12 9:25 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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.)
>
>
>
>
>
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
>