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

[Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,

I have been waiting for the reports too from early this year and had been 
asking staff to follow up. Here's the link that I use for monitoring the 
reports:

[1] http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/studies

Apologies in advance if it's not the link that you were looking for. 

Kind Regards,
Sala

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 8, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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 tho!
> se 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
> 
>