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

[Rick Wesson <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh, if you (and the collected group) find my language offensive I do
apologize.

-rick



On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>> >>> 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
>> >>> 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 <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>> >>> 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
>> >>> 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.)
>
>