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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Don, I knew you were not serious. But emoticons or not, I was and am.

On Sep 20, 2013, at 12:06 PM, "Don Blumenthal" <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
>