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

[Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>]

I'll let others decide for themselves whether what you just wrote gibes
with your message that contained accusations, or whether my targeted query
to subteam members is the same as your offline correspondence. I obviously
don't think so in either case.

To the more general discussion, a formal recommendation for a study of
privacy issues in this context makes no sense given current realities, and
I don't believe in requests just to make political points. The privacy
considerations that may arise in the context of domain registration data
services have to be considered in the context of existing systems. The
Whois that would be examined in the short term is not the whois that will
exist after a post-EWG PDP and after changes from the IETF protocol
efforts. To do a full study now and then have to repeat it, which I think
is inevitable given the work of the EWG and the makeup of its membership,
is a waste of time and effort. ICANN already does enough of that through
overlapping efforts on the same topics.

My argument with your approach is procedural, not substantive. The
historic lack of attention to privacy issues on the part of ICANN (the
corporation) and contracted parties is inexcusable. ICANN (the general
community) needs to be aware of the questions. ICANN (the GNSO community)
must be ready to address them as they come up in the context of
fundamental changes to the domain registration data system that are
coming. I have no problem with a 7.3 suggestion that ICANN address issues,
whether through policy review or, which I think will be more productive in
the short term, adequate attention from general counsel offices in ICANN
and elsewhere. However, as I said, I do object to the WG making a formal
recommendation to do what I firmly believe is a waste of time now.

Don




On 9/19/13 11:39 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I was not included in the note you sent. It was not sent to this list as
>far as I know. 
>The reputational claim is made every time NCSG doesn't fall into line, so
>hearing it made again was not too surprising, I did not need to know it
>came from you.
>I used a chatham house construction to talk about an issue without naming
>anyone.  I am sure you are not the only one saying such things.  We hear
>them every time.
>
>As for conversations with Mikey, strikes me as odd that you feel free to
>have behind the scenes conversations but condemn me for doing the same
>thing.  Also, I had been clear about my recommendation on this list
>several weeks ago.  The note I wrote to Mikey was questioning why it had
>not been included in the draft.  I wanted to understand before I brought
>the issue up again on the list.
>
>avri
>
>
>On 19 Sep 2013, at 11:23, Don Blumenthal wrote:
>
>> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> I wrote the note that you mention in your last paragraph. Have the
>> courtesy to write me directly, or at least call me out by name here, if
>> you have problems with something I wrote. I chaired the privacy subteam
>> and approached NCSG members to get their reading of what was going on. I
>> already had heard from other ST participants. In addition, you
>>apparently
>> haven't received a forward of the message in which I said that I
>>shouldn't
>> have made the reputation comment.
>> 
>> As Mikey suggested, maybe some of the communications problems here could
>> have been avoided if you communicated with the group more often and less
>> one-one with Mikey.
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> On 9/19/13 10:54 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>