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

[Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>]

I like this approach.

Privacy and Whois came up this morning on another ICANN community list
that I'm on. So that nobody thinks that the issues have been a complete
black hole in ICANN, the recent RAA contained improved measures for
waivers of data collection and retention requirements. I'm not suggesting
that attention has been near adequate, but ICANN isn't ignorant of the
issues.

http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/updates/retention

As an aside, the improvement was something that the subteam talked about
suggesting. I'm not at the computer that has my documents, so I forget if
it made it into the final draft or if events overtook us.

Don


On 9/20/13 11:57 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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 Counsel¹s 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 registry¹s 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 Counsel¹s 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
>>>registry¹s 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.)
>