Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

I still find Avri's proposed language too broad, so I tried my hand at a 
quick rewrite. Probably still needs a little fiddling, but more in the 
direction what I could support, although putting this into 7.1 is a bit 
iffy to me.
   /The WG discussed many of the issues involved in moving from having a 
registration currently governed under the privacy rules by one jurisdiction in 
a//_thin_//whois to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Registry in a 
thick whois.  The WG did not feel it was competent to//_reach a final 
conclusion on_//these issues involving international privacy laws.//The Working 
group therefore makes the following recommendation:

     . We recommend that the ICANN Board_request a__n independ__ent legal 
review to be undertaken on the privacy implications of a transfer 
of__registrant data between jurisdictions_//./

Reasons: If we could not find ourselves competent to decide a small 
matter like the transfer of private data, how can we expect another PDP 
to tackle an even broader issue of privacy issues surrounding WHOIS in 
general? For the purposes of this WG, the determination that we were 
unable to reach a final conclusion on could and should be resolved by 
independent counsel.
While a new PDP on WHOIS and privacy issues is certainly something worth 
considering and something I would welcome, I do not feel that this WG 
needs to make that recommendation as it would be much broader than the 
smaller issue we were tasked to tackle.
Volker

> Hi,
>
> For me this needs to be a Recommendation (7.1, big R), not an extra 
> consideration.  This issue was within the purview of the group and the group 
> bailed on it for lack of capability.  Fine, then lets step and recommend that 
> those that have the capability do so.    In this age of world attention on 
> privacy issues, I can't beleive we are still dancing around the point.
>
> I am currently working on getting the NCSG to endorse this.  As the alternate 
> chair of the NCSG Policy committee I beleive this is something that will be 
> supported by the NCSG.  I will personally submit a minority position and work 
> to get the NCSG to endorse it, if this recommendation is not included in 7.1.  
> For myself at this point, I will reject the entire report without this, as the 
> report is incomplete without this as a primary Recommendation.  To my mind NCSG 
> would be shirking it responsibilities if we let this report go out without such 
> a recommendation.
>
> Incidentally, my impression from the list discussion was that there was 
> support, but that wording needed changing.  It was changed.
>
> I understand that there are those who may be playing divide and conquer games 
> behind the scenes, claiming that my position will hurt NCSG's reputation.  I 
> have bcc'e d the NCSG on this note so that they themselves can determine if it 
> is reputation damaging.  There are others who are are cynically claiming that I 
> am going against the bottom-up model by insisting on privacy considerations.  I 
> reject those claims.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 19 Sep 2013, at 10:25, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> > hi all,
> >
> > i may have been the culprit here.  Avri, my interpretation of the desultory 
> > conversation on the list was that there *wasn't* much support for the idea.  
> > and then when you didn't show up on last week's call to pitch/push it, i forgot 
> > to bring it up.  my bad -- sorry about that.
> >
> > let's try to have a vigorous conversation about this on the list, and drive to 
> > a conclusion on the call next week.
> >
> > Avri, you and i had a one-to-one email exchange about this and i suggested that 
> > this recommendation might fit better, and be more widely accepted, if it was in 
> > the privacy and data protection part of our report (Section 7.3).  could you 
> > give us an indication of whether acceptance of this version of the 
> > recommendation is required?  in more casual terms, is there any wiggle room 
> > here?  i think it would be helpful for the rest of the group to know the 
> > framework for the conversation.
> >
> > carry on folks,
> >
> > mikey
> >
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I was disappointed to not see the recommendation for the Issues report included 
> > > in 7.1.    I thought we had discussed it on this list and thee had been little 
> > > opposition, though there was some.  I cannot support this report with a strong 
> > > recommendation for follow on work on the Privacy issues.  And, contrary to what 
> > > others may beleive, I do not see any such work currently ongoing in ICANN.  I 
> > > think it i s unfortunate that we keep pushing off this work and are not willing 
> > > to face it directly.  I beleive I have the support of others in the NCSG, 
> > > though the content of a minority statement has yet to be decided on.
> > >
> > > While still somewhat inadequate, I am ready to argue for going along with 
> > > consensus on this document if the following is included in 7.1:
> > >
> > >
> > > The WG  discussed many of the issues involved in moving from having a 
> > > registration currently governed under the privacy rules by one jurisdiction in 
> > > a thick whois to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Registry in a 
> > > thick whois.  The WG did not feel it was competent to fully discuss these 
> > > privacy issues and was not able to fully separate the privacy issues involved 
> > > in such a move from the general privacy issues that need to be resolved in 
> > > Whois.  there was also concern with intersection with other related Privacy 
> > > issues that ICANN currently needs to work on.  The Working group therefore 
> > > makes the following recommendation:
> > >
> > > . We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the 
> > > issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other related GNSO policies.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > avri
> > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
> > (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht 
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder 
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.