RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Addition to Privacy summary

["Balleste, Roy" <rballeste@xxxxxxx>]

Alan,

Thank you for the summary.  However, I believe it still needs to be expanded 
and re-drafted.  I doubt that human rights can be labeled as not "concrete 
concerns."  Again, I do not see how registrants will be serviced by the 
statement below.
I think that in this topic, if the conclusion is not at least half a page, it 
may fail to reflect its complexity. Just my humble observation.

Roy


From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:01 AM
To: Thick Whois WG
Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Addition to Privacy summary

Although Mikey assigned the first gauntlet to Amr, I had already drafted 
something while we were speaking, so I will toss it out here in case it is 
applicable. It is in BOLD BLUE below. (which I hope the mailing list will not 
delete.)

Alan

Summary of Thick Whois PDP WG Data Protection and Privacy Paper

There are currently issues with respect to privacy related to Whois, and these 
will only grow in the future. Those issues apply to other gTLDs as well, and 
thus will need to be addressed by ICANN. Existing Registry policy and practice 
allows flexibility when needed, and the new draft RAA provides similar options 
for registrars. None of these issues seem to be related to whether a thick or 
thin Whois model is being used. The support of the Registrar Stakeholder Group 
related to a thin-to-thick transition implies that they perceive no immediate 
issue. There are still WG participants who feel uneasy with the vast amounts of 
data that will need to be transferred across jurisdictional boundaries, but 
those have not translated into concrete concerns. So although privacy issues 
may become a substantive issue in the future, and should certainly be part of 
the investigation of a replacement for Whois, it is not a reason to not proceed 
with this PDP WG recommending thick Whois for all.