RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] PDP Feb06 task force call 16 January 2007 - 1900 UTC

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Glen, would you please post the confirmations to this call for PDP 06, that
you have received, check with Avri regarding any flexibility on her part as
chair, check with Liz regarding her ability to be flexible re times/dates,
and if Avri can accommodate, can we ask via the list if the time can be
moved, and /or if the date can be moved by one day, to Wednesday? Thanks.
See below. 

 

Like Jeff, I have a conflict. I am trying to manage around it, but it occurs
to me that perhaps we can ask if some flexibility in the TF overall can
accommodate a further change, if that would help both Jeff and me, and NOT
create challenges for the members of the TF. 

 

I'm in Europe, and have a business dinner that I'm hosting, with
governments,  at this time. I will join the call for an hour, which is the
best I can do. My apologies for my limitations. 

 

Moving the call by two hours EITHER WAY would be an improvement for me and
make it easier to participate. Moving the call by a day would also be an
improvement. Jeff, would either of those help you, as well? 

 

I know, I know. Lots of grumpy comments about checking the ICANN web site,
etc. However, the reality is that 'push' communications is an improvement
over 'pull', and at least two members have challenges.

 

Is it possible to accommodate by some flexibility IF it doesn't disadvantage
the long list of other confirmed attendees. IF we have a long  list of
confirmed attendees already. And the chair and policy staff manager can
accommodate.

 

 

Marilyn 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 6:05 PM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Avri Doria'
Cc: 'PDPfeb06'; 'Glen De Saint Géry'; 'Liz Williams'; Denise Michel
(denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] PDP Feb06 task force call 16 January 2007 -
1900 UTC

 

Dear Liz and other ICANN staff

 

I don't think it is really as effective to rely on the publication of a

master calendar as the routine communication with a TF regarding meetings.

Perhaps for now, until members of the community get used to having to check

the web site for updates, we could return to having a 'push' approach to

communicating with the TF members. Over time, we may all learn to check the

web site, but as busy folks, I confess to having lost track myself. 

 

We don't expect the Councilors to remember, but Glen sends them reminders,

of course, they can then check the web site... 

We are all creatures of habit, but more importantly, pretty consumed with

day to day work as well as ICANN work. Would be helpful to have a 'reminder'

policy by staff.

 

Marilyn 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx

[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff

Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 2:26 PM

To: Avri Doria

Cc: PDPfeb06

Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] PDP Feb06 task force call 16 January 2007 -

1900 UTC

 

OK.  Then it was my miss.  Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend

due to previous commitments, but I am hoping some others from the

registry constituency will be able to join.

 

Below are some initial thoughts for discussion purposes on TOR 5.  These

are my own personal thoughts and do not necessarily reflect the views of

NeuStar and/or the gTLD Registries Constituency (except where so

identified).

 

      1.  As stated by the gTLD registry constituencies, in order to

evaluate any policy recommendations, the term "registry data" needs to

be defined.  

 

      2.  In addition, the group needs to recognize that there are

different types of registry data, some of which is Personal Data, some

of which is completely unrelated to Personal Data.  To the extent that

such information is Personal Data (as defined in the existing contracts

or by applicable national law), such data may already be properly dealt

with in the WHOIS policies, the existing contracts, or in many instances

by applicable law.

 

      3.  Where such data is not Personal Data, but relates to other

types of data collected by registries, such data needs to be defined.

Perhaps the task force should send a formal request to the registries

asking for the type of data it collects.

 

      4.  Work must also be done to establish what rights, either by

contract, law or otherwise, that parties other than registries, have in

the non-Personal data.  The reason I state this is that there has been a

claim by some that individuals/businesses/entities, etc. have some sort

of privacy or other right in their "non-personal" data (i.e., traffic

data).  I personally have never seen such laws or regulations, but I

would be happy for someone to show me the basis for those claims.  In

the event that the Task Force is even thinking about limiting the use of

any non-personal data, there needs to be some basis in law, contract,

etc. for such limitation.  Please also recognize that any limitations

placed on such data by "Consensus Policy" must also be consistent with

the GNSO's mandate and the existing contracts.

 

      5.  Finally, the group needs to recognize that registries often

use registry data for security purposes (security for its own TLD and

security for the Internet as a whole).  Registries may or may not be

able to disclose how such information is being used, but care must be

taken as to not restrict a registry's right to use registry data for

such purposes.

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 

Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development 

 

NeuStar, Inc. 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 

Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:26 PM

To: Neuman, Jeff

Cc: PDPfeb06

Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] PDP Feb06 task force call 16 January 2007

- 1900 UTC

 

Hi,

 

On 12 jan 2007, at 10.53, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

 

> Did I miss the previous announcement on a January 16th meeting?  If it

> was previously announced, I apologize for this note.  If, however, it

> was not, when was this decided?

> 

> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.

> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development

> 

> NeuStar, Inc.

> 

 

 

It was announced as part of the entire schedule back in Liz Williams  

schedule email of 4 Dec 2006, and has been listed in the GNSO master  

schedule for several weeks now.

 

a.