Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1
sorry -- i was off the 'net there for a while. Rick, i'm calling this post "out of line." we're at the end of a long process and this kind of language is not helpful or appreciated. i would ask that you apologize to the group and try to frame subsequent comments in a more constructive way. mikey On Sep 20, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Rick Wesson <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've sat one the side lines for most of this thread. > > Avri, > > I have reviewed all your comments, however what I am looking for is a much > more detailed analysis of your points on privacy. I hear you YELLING at the > last minute but your notes don't reflect *any* analysis of thick-whois > privacy implications. > > There have been many like you, over the years, that state this is _IMPORTANT_ > without framing the issue clearly. > > I will loudly declare your desires out of scope, without a lengthy analytic > post from you on what the issue you have is. Lengthy like 3K-5K words on just > WTF you are thinking. > > You want "privacy on the front burner" -- well then you had better educate > *all of us* on just what your blocking tactic is to accomplish. We have > discussed privacy for well over 10 years, Privacy in the whois is like FTL > (faster than light) travel to a physicist. > > Of course privacy is important, its just out of scope, not within our working > groups remit. The reason we narrowly define working group charters is so that > they can ignore bug problems and solve little ones. > > Avri, stop being disruptive and start pounding out some prose that make > sense, privacy isn't going to be solved by us and its an issue that by design > was not included within the groups remit. > > so educate me, > > > -rick > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:24 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
|