Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] new pictures

[Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>]

Nice job. The last one on stakeholders in particular is useful for making sure 
we consider the range of interested parties.

I would rewrite the Risk Assessment Framework slide. I still like the idea of 
taking a general RA approach mentally. However, I'm afraid that tackling it 
formally is complicating the discussions and introducing terms that don't work 
for what we are talking about, at least without spending a lot of time 
explaining or refining the slide. It also doesn't factor the legal questions 
we've raised, unless a data protection law conflict is covered by adversarial 
or non-adversarial threat event. I could see either one. :)

The question for me basically is:

Does requiring a move from a thin to a thick registry raise issues concerning 
1) data loss through hack or inadvertent disclosure or 2) clashes with data 
protection laws? Both questions need to be considered during transfer and when 
the data is in the registry's Whois.

Don



From: Mikey O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, February 8, 2013 3:55 PM
To: Thick Thin PDP 
<gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] new pictures

hi all,

Avri and i had a great conversation this week over, dare i say it, a series of 
pictures.  the version we arrived at is included in this deck, along with 
another one that Berry Cobb created for the RAP working group that shows the 
various contracts between parties in the process.

as with all pictures, this is still a work in progress and i'm sure it will 
morph a few more times before we're done.  let me lay down a few disclaimers.

-- these aren't a representation of WG positions.  the one that Avri and i were 
working on was just a vehicle for a useful (at least for me) conversation. it's 
not even representative of *our* positions.  think of it as more a thought 
exercise and question-raiser.

-- all the good ideas are Avri's, all the bad ideas are mine.

-- there are assertion/questions in there that we didn't know the answers to.  
we made them during our conversation but mostly we're interested in the views 
of others who have more expertise.

-- Berry's drawing about contracts has been reviewed by ICANN legal, so there's 
more meat there -- although it's aimed at a slightly different target than ours 
and thus privacy/proxy providers aren't represented.  it would be interesting 
to see where they fit.

enjoy,

mikey



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