<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:17:13 -0400
The ATRT is meeting and will be considering a
recommendation on PDPs that may include the need
for F2F meetings. Based on this discussion, such
meetings at ICANN meetings could be a part of this.
The above statement has a lot of conditionals in
it because we have not yet come to closure, but
it will factor into the discussion.
Alan
At 20/09/2013 09:52 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What should happen is ICANN scheduling for these
F2F meetings during regular hours. This is
important work, not an afterthought that should
get shoehorned in. Evidently the idea of F2F
meetings for PDP working groups is not a
consideration when these meetings are planned.
Tim
On Sep 20, 2013, at 9:04 AM, "Marika Konings"
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I would actually like to counter that: it is almost impossible to schedule
> a WG F2F meeting during the 'normal' hours of an ICANN meeting as there
> are so many conflicting events going on, meaning that hardly anyone is
> able to attend. Turnout during breakfast sessions has been fairly good and
> resulted in productive WG sessions (after enough coffee was served ;-) I
> know early morning is not ideal, but there seem to be few alternatives
> (unless people prefer to have a F2F meeting at the end of the day?).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> On 20/09/13 14:58, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Fully agreed. Working Group meetings at such times are a pain and
>> probably part of the reason participation of the community is more
>> limited than it could be.
>>
>> Volker
>>
>>>> (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.twitt
>>>> er.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.twitt
>>>> er.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.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|