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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> (Note to ICANN: I like programs that begin at 10 a.m.)

As do I, maybe even 9am. In any event, while I will likely be in Buenos Aires I 
would not be able to make any meeting that starts prior to 9am, and requiring 
WGs to meet at 7:30am is ridiculous.

Tim


On Sep 19, 2013, at 12:37 PM, "Don Blumenthal" <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>