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

[Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>]

Another note, this time to self. Use emoticons.

I have become used to early ICANN sessions, and periodically will go
completely against my nature and suggest a breakfast meeting.

Marika, you may want to supply syringes for the coffee if something is
before 8.

Don




On 9/20/13 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.twit
>>>>t
>>>>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.twit
>>>>t
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>>