Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1
i think maybe i need to put all the stuff in one post. 1) we put a big-R recommendation to do the legal review in 7.1. here's the language that Volker proposed with some rough draft "sequence" language in brackets. > We recommend that the ICANN Board request an independent legal review to be > undertaken [before transition to thick whois] on the privacy implications of > a transfer of registrant data between jurisdictions. 2) we beef up the body of the report to support that recommendation -- the language is already there, i just think it ought to be moved down into a more recommendation-focused paragraph. again rough-draft "sequence" language in brackets. > page 30: "Again, these questions must be explored in more depth by ICANN > Staff [before transition to thick whois], starting with the General Counsel’s > Office, and by the community. As an added benefit, analyses concerning change > of applicable laws with respect to transition from a thin to a thick > environment also may prove valuable in the event of changes in a registry’s > management, presumably an increasing likelihood given the volume of new gTLDs > on the horizon." 3) we put a version of your little-r recommendation in section 7.3 > 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. On Sep 20, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > All lovely ideas, but they don't meet the need to put the privacy issues on > the front burner. > > avri > > On 20 Sep 2013, at 09:24, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >> [hijacking this thread back to its original topic] >> >> hi Avri, >> >> i, for one, think turnabout on the way to consensus is one of the very best >> things about ICANN. thanks Avri >> >> here's language describing that legal review as it stands (this is the last >> paragraph of Discussion section of 5.5 Data Protection >> >> page 30: "Again, these questions must be explored in more depth by ICANN >> Staff, starting with the General Counsel’s Office, and by the community. As >> an added benefit, analyses concerning change of applicable laws with respect >> to transition from a thin to a thick environment also may prove valuable in >> the event of changes in a registry’s management, presumably an increasing >> likelihood given the volume of new gTLDs on the horizon." >> >> i *think* that's the only place it shows up in the current draft, which >> means that while we worked hard on the language, it's not really a >> recommendation right now and kindof buried down in the details. it's also >> vague on the sequencing -- but i have been presuming that the legal review >> would have to happen before the conversion and would be comfortable >> clarifying that. >> >> from a report-drafting standpoint if we pursue this direction, i think we'd >> want to do a few minor revisions to provide support for that big-R >> recommendation that's being proposed. >> >> - clarify that sequence >> >> - move that paragraph from the "Discussion" section of 5.5 down to the >> "Conclusions" section to provide stronger underpinnings for the >> recommendation >> >> all pretty easy to do from a mechanical report-drafting point of view, if >> the group agrees on that approach. >> >> good work. carry on, >> >> mikey >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 19, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|