Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] in preparation for the call tomorrow

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich,

I think you are arguing a different issue here. The only issue we (and 
therefore the legal review) need to be concerned with is the rights of 
the parties listed in the whois in their own private details and how 
they may be affected in a move of their data from whereever they are 
stored now to the US, not third party rights. This is a greatly reduced 
scope from whe indeed lunatic scenario you depict.
Questions that need to be answered are:
Do the general registration terms of most registrars cover such a move? 
I would argue they do already for any registrar I have seen.
What are the data protection requirements that the registry operator 
must meet prior to being able to receive the data?
Best,

Volker


> Mike,
>
> Having spent some time in the IETF I find it hard to apply those rules 
> you outlined belwo, here. Our consensus is not about technical issues.
> Take for instance, the idea that a public record being published in 
> jurisdiction A is now published (publicly) in jurisdiction B and a 
> third party takes issue with the move, though this 3rd party has no 
> relationship to the domain, registrant, nor registrar A or B. Finally 
> a 4th party takes issue with the rights the 3rd party might have 
> should the publishing of this record change from A to B that they 
> incest that ICANN review all 209 international laws on privacy and 
> show how the 3rd party might be effected should A or B land in any one 
> of those places -- and provide a report to the GNSO describing the 3rd 
> parties effected rights.
> In the IETF we would have ignored such lunacy, because its not 
> technical. someone from the working group, probably the chair, would 
> have sat these folks down and asked them to focus one a more 
> productive side of the problems at hand. A good chair probably would 
> have pushed for a binary answer to the issue at hand. So that those 
> consuming our work product would have an answer -- preferably in binary.
> Since this is not the IETF, we might check our charter, which makes no 
> mention of rough consensus though many of the terms you defined are 
> defined at 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/thick-whois-charter-08oct12-en.pdf
> Finally, I'd like to point out that the IETF way you suggested is 
> orthoginal to the designations in our charter and I advise you remind 
> the working group of the charter and to follow those rules we have 
> agreed to.
> -rick
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>     hi all,
>
>     i've been reflecting on where we're at and have arrived at two key
>     words i want us to focus on in preparation for the call tomorrow
>     -- "objections" and "precision"
>
>     we've heard back from the General Counsel that they would like to
>     see more precision in our request for a legal review.  i wrote a
>     response on the spur of the moment that i'm regretting now.
>
>     homework assignment:  try to come up with language that clarifies
>     what we are asking the GC to do, and also come up with language
>     that limits the scope of that effort to something that is
>     achievable within reasonable time and budget.
>
>     i'm feeling the need to draw this part of the conversation to a
>     close and am hoping that we can get this last visit to the privacy
>     issue completed on the call tomorrow.  if, at the end of the call,
>     we still are not there, i'm going to ask the group's permission to
>     go off and do the duty of the Chair, which is to reflect on the
>     state of our work with the following structure in mind.
>
>     IETF - Consensus
>
>         Credo
>
>             Do's
>                 decisions are made by (more or less) consent of all
>     participants
>                 the actual products of engineering trump theoretical
>     designs
>
>             Don'ts
>                 we don't let a single individual make the decisions
>                 nor do we let the majority dictate decisions
>                 nor do we allow decisions to be made in a vacuum
>     without practical experience
>
>             Require rough, not full consensus
>                 If the chair of a working group determines that a
>     technical issue brought forward by an objector has been truly
>     considered by the working group, and
>                 the working group has made an informed decision that
>     the objection has been answered or is not enough of a technical
>     problem to prevent moving forward,
>                 the chair can declare that there is rough consensus to
>     go forward, the objection notwithstanding.
>
>         Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement
>         _determining_ consensus and _coming to_ consensus are
>     different things than _having_ consensus
>             Consensus is not when everyone is happy and agrees that
>     the chosen solution is the best one
>             Consensus is when everyone is sufficiently satisfied with
>     the chosen solution, such that they no longer have specific
>     objections to it
>             Engineering always involves a set of tradeoffs.  It is
>     almost certain that any time engineering choices need to be made,
>     there will be options that appeal to some people that are not
>     appealing to some others.  The key is to separate those choices
>     that are simply unappealing from those that are truly problematic.
>
>
>     this outline is lifted from an IETF draft which seems like a good
>     guideline.  the full draft can be found here.
>
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
>
>     this is why i want us to focus on "objections" and "precision" on
>     our call.
>
>     mikey
>
>     PHONE: 651-647-6109 <tel:651-647-6109>, FAX: 866-280-2356
>     <tel: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

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.