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

[Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>]

Interesting idea. I wrote my note saying that a legal review would be more 
useful than a policy one before I saw it. Really.

I'm at a conference and today's sessions are about to start (Note to ICANN: I 
like programs that begin at 10 a.m.). I have some questions about the  idea of 
an independent review that I need to ponder during breaks and boring 
presentations.

Don



From: Volker Greimann 
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:14 AM
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>
Cc: Thick Thin PDP 
<gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1

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><mailto: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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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

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