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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Man, I'm getting dizzy here! That is exactly the kind of thing (but not the 
only thing, other experts for example) that needs to be done. Do we go back and 
do it now, or do we figure out how to address in our report the concerns that 
some (like myself) have expressed about that kind of thing not having been done 
yet? I thought we were working on the latter.

I do know that putting Lynn on the spot for a thumbs up or thumbs down (that's 
binary, right?) does completely address all of the concerns raised. So if we 
are going to go back let's decide that first and then get a game plan together 
on how to do it right so we don't end up back here later.

Tim


On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:04 PM, "Rick Wesson" 
<rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Don,

Don't ask me to prove negatives, we don't do that in ICANN nor the IETF. Has 
anyone asked ICANN or possible the legal team at PIR if it was considered. Not 
knowing is understandable, not asking is a different matter.

If I recall correctly the PIR legal team still attends ICANN functions, and 
their board might remember as well. If I recall correctly Lynn St. Amour, ISOC 
Liaison (N. America) was heavily involved and continues to represent ISOC, 
which cares about privacy. Did anyone ask her?

-rick


On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Don Blumenthal 
<dblumenthal@xxxxxxx<mailto:dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
As has been discussed on the list and in the privacy subteam report,, we don't 
know whether the question was answered when .org transitioned. I could not find 
any sign that data protection was considered at the time, and no subsequent 
complaints does not mean that no issues existed. In addition, the cross 
jurisdictional data transfer landscape has changed significantly in the last 
ten years.

Don

From: Rick Wesson 
<Rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, October 14, 2013 2:38 PM
To: Volker Greimann 
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Michael O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Thick Thin PDP 
<gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] in preparation for the call tomorrow

Was this question not answered with the .ORG transfer? As our charter 
specifically asks us to detail such?

-rick



On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Volker Greimann 
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851>
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.twitter.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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851>
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.twitter.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.