Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve,

- I was not aware of there currently being any PDP on Privacy issues in WHOIS.  
But I have not been paying the same attention to this over the last few months 
as I have in the past, so thought that perhaps I had missed it.  I went and 
looked* and could not find it.  Can you point me toward the ongoing PDP on 
Privacy issues?

-  I was not aware of there currently being any pending issues report on 
Privacy Issue in WHOIS in the GNSO I went and looked and could not find it.  
Can you point me toward the pending issues report  on Privacy issues?  Yes 
there is an old RAA issues report that is being looked at now in the council,. 
Is that what you meant?  

- It is important that the Privacy work for WHOIS be done in a proper Bylaws 
GNSO PDP if we want it to be relevant for the operation of gTLDs, not one of 
the new style top-constructions we see in ICANN these days.

- On the other hand, had there been an existing GNSO PDP, my request would have 
been that we explicitly recommend the list of Privacy issues that were 
discussed during the discussion of this PDP, so that the other PDP could have 
its charter augmented by the issues this group has uncovered but did not have 
the capacity to handle.  So if I have missed an ongoing effort, I will amend 
the requested recommendation.

- I am suggesting the WG recommend an issue report.  That is a step short from 
asking for a PDP.  Though I admit that if the Board did request the issues 
report that would automatically trigger a PDP.

- I was asking for a Board issues report  mostly because I think it is 
important to get a-priori Board imprimatur on a GNSO PDP on Privacy issues 
because it needs the commitment of many ICANN departments, not just the GNSO 
and the Policy Team.  Yes an issue report by the GNSO might do as well, but it 
might not have the same influence over ICANN beyond the GNSO as a Board request 
for an issues report.  While I thought it was better to recommend the Board 
request the issues report, I can see reason why the GNSO might prefer to do 
this itself.  In fact, you and others may be right, better to recommend that 
the GNSO just initiate the issue report immediately as opposed to waiting for 
the Board to act on it.  We should probably ask ICANN staff to coordinate with 
whatever ongoing issues reports they may have going with other GNSO gTLD 
privacy concerns.

- While the specific privacy issues this group has uncovered have to do with 
the issues that occur in the transition from thin-to-thick, one of the refrains 
in this group has been, "we can't really differentiate the thin-to-thick case 
from all privacy cases of a registrar in one jurisdiction transferring private 
information to another jurisdiction with a lower standard of privacy.  So the 
related issues may be many.  Other related issues have to do  with some of the 
issues related to the RAA.  Currently there is discussion in the GNSO and its 
council on those issues.  They overlap with the issue in this WG  but are not 
identical in scope.  I would have suggested widening the scope of this group's 
issue report request, but figured that wouldn't go anywhere.  In any case, if 
the GNSO has several recommendations for issues reports, they can combine and 
tune as the Council and Policy Staff see fit. 

- This is a recommendation from this group based on all the Privacy issues 
related to thin-to-thick that we pushed off to some other time.  The only 
things in the scope of this PDP WG, as we have been reminded of countless 
times, are defined in this WG's charter, and not in the possible actions of 
some other body at some other undetermined point in time.  We need to request 
an Issues report to have people with the appropriate competency study the 
issues we were not adequate for,  and layout those issues for a possible PDP.  
We cannot judge what will result from other efforts or what they might 
contribute to the discussion - that is a task for the managers of the policy 
effort, i.e. the GNSO Council. As a PDP WG, we just need to recommend what we 
ought to recommend based on this group's work.  And for me that includes a 
recommendation for an issues report related to the privacy issues that have 
emerged from this PDP.  I am fine with building an a-priori inter alia list of 
those issues, but am also comfortable with leaving that to the Council and the 
Policy Staff.

Thanks for the questions

avri


* searched on GNSO site using search as well as consulting:

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/policy
https://community.icann.org/category/gnso

I did not find a list of pending issues report.


On 5 Sep 2013, at 21:19, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

> 
> Amr, and Avri, 
> 
> Could you clarify a couple of points?  
> 
> If the recommendation you think the WG should make pertains to privacy issues 
> involved in Whois, isn't that already covered by the Board-initiated PDP?
> 
> If the recommendation relates to privacy issues involved in "other GNSO 
> policies," as Avri suggested, how does that relate to the scope of work we 
> have been asked to do?
> 
> I am also confused by Avri's last post.  Does a recommendation from GNSO 
> council for a consensus policy have a different status when it comes before 
> the Board depending on whether it arose from a PDP initiated by the Board or 
> by the Council?  Or are you referring to some other kind of recommendation?  
> 
> Why would the Council ask the Board to initiate a  PDP (or why would we 
> recommend that Council do so)  when Council  has the full capability to do so 
> itself and indeed nearly all PDPs have arisen in this manner? 
> 
> Thanks for any insights you can provide on these questions.  
> 
> Steve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:58 AM
> To: Thick Whois
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new 
> recommendation
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think there are not only substantive issue as Amr points out, but also a 
> recommendation from a PDP WG has a different status from a recommendation for 
> a Board WG and commands a different response from the Board if the GNSO 
> Council approves the recommendation.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Steve,
>> 
>> The issue report posted at the link you provided does indeed mandate the 
>> ensuing PDP WG to consider both the ongoing progress of any WHOIS-related 
>> Working Groups, and answer any questions pertaining to privacy laws 
>> governing transfer of personal data. However, as far as I can tell, this all 
>> seems to be in the context of access to and accuracy of domain name 
>> registration data. This will create a scope too narrow to include what I 
>> believe Avri is suggesting, which should probably list these same two items 
>> in an issue report more specific to the transition of WHOIS from "thin" to 
>> "thick".
>> 
>> This seems fitting to me, since we (as per the WG's initial report) lacked 
>> the capacity to address this issue conclusively.
>> 
>> I appreciate any more thoughts you and others might have on this.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Isn't this already covered by the Board-initiated PDP on Whois that will be 
>>> launched once the EWG issues its final report, and as to which a 
>>> preliminary issues report has already been published?  
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13-en.htm
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:45 AM
>>> To: gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new 
>>> recommendation
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We have moved a lot of privacy issues into a heap called - 'to be worked on 
>>> later'
>>> 
>>> I recommend that we include the following recommendation to deal with this 
>>> myriad  of issues:
>>> 
>>> We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the 
>>> issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other GNSO policies.
>>> 
>>> This recommendation would probably require some glue language in a few 
>>> other spots in the final report.
>>> 
>>> The reason for requesting that the Board, as opposed to the GNSO, is the 
>>> number of ICANN staff organizations, such as legal, that need to be folded 
>>> into any such effort.  It would also give evidence of ICANN's concern about 
>>> such issues in this time of great privacy anxiety.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Avri Doria
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>