Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] in preparation for the call tomorrow
Mikey, to be clear, I said I would try to refine the language if there was agreement that this was a viable way forward. I have zero time to even try that before the meeting. Alan At 14/10/2013 04:55 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: just a quick note before i hit the road for a few hours.i like where this is going. Volker has a couple of good precise questions, Alan is developing a framework that gives the staff clear ideas about what needs to be done without completely tying their hands.Alan, i'd like to take you up on your offer to refine the language -- with the caveat that we focus on what needs to be done, more than how it is done (leaving the implementation group some flexibility in planning how they deliver).carry on, mikeyOn Oct 14, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Let me try to describe what *I* think that we need from the "legal review". I make no claim that it would satisfy NCSG not that it is viable (although I think it is).We want a high degree of comfort that ICANN, the registry involved, and the registrars involved will not be in violation of privacy legislation if a transition from thick to thin WHOIS is carried out. A sample of registrar should include those sponsoring large a plurality of the applicable registrations as well as a sampling of the larger registrants in jurisdictions with particularly stringent privacy laws (perhaps selected EU countries, Canada, selected Asia-Pacific countries). For registries and registrars, I would suggest that such a comfort level could be reached by consulting with the selected registry and registrars, with the presumption that they will consult their own legal counsels if needed.I use term "high degree of comfort" because I do not believe that we can get an iron-clad guarantee - the privacy world is too complex. But I believe that it is sufficient for going forward.Should the WG and ICANN staff agree, I would be pleased to try to put this into more formal language.Alan At 14/10/2013 01:45 PM, Volker Greimann 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, VolkerMike,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>http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/thick-whois-charter-08oct12-en.pdfFinally, 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.-rickOn Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Mike O'Connor <<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>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.
|