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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Forgive me for doing this bit of turnabout: is this legal review something that 
would occur before the thick whois for incumbent registries was put into 
effect?  

At first blush, if this was combined with a 7.3. recommendation for a full 
Issues report, I might be able to accept it and convince the NCSG that this was 
a good compromise.

thanks

avri


On 19 Sep 2013, at 11:14, Volker Greimann wrote:

> 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 an independent 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.
> 
> 
> 
>