<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] in preparation for the call tomorrow
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Rick Wesson <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] in preparation for the call tomorrow
- From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:19:13 +0200
I agree with Tim. We determined that these questions should not be
answered by ourselves and had some form of consensus that this should be
reviewed by experts prior to implementation.
Volker
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.
--
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|