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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes, you are correct.  At this point it only affects the registrants of .com 
and .net.

Sorry it was late and I was thinking expansively.  And I agree, it probably 
dipped my toe into the work of the WG.

apologies

avri

On 15 Oct 2012, at 21:25, Mike O'Connor 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.)
> 
> 
>