[pdp-pcceg-feb06] References to Traffic Data Provision
[To: pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Pursuant to last nights call, Liz Williams referred to the draft NCUC statement by Danny Younger for rapporteur group 2 on: Registry Data Uses Policy 59. As noted by ICANN Staff: “Registry data is available to the registry as a consequence of registry operation. Examples of registry data could include information on domain name registrants, information in domain name records, and traffic data associated with providing the DNS resolution services associated with the registry.” The NCUC has examined whether or not there should be a policy regarding the use of registry data for purposes other than for which it was collected, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be; the NCUC has concluded that there should be a policy limiting the use of Registry data to just the purpose for which it was collected. 60. This conclusion is based on the extensive work the constituency has conducted with respect to privacy. We refer Task Force members and GNSO Councilors to the “Backgrounder” report prepared by the NCUC: International Data Protection Laws: Comments to ICANN from Commissioners and Organizations Regarding WHOIS and the Protection of Privacy . 61. The NCUC has already commented that “we oppose non-discriminatory access to registry traffic data. It would make Internet users’ activities an unending target of data mining”. As a constituency we believe that there are very serious risks associated with the culling of data on non-existent domains (that would be permitted under certain proposed contracts). In particular, we are troubled by the prospect of the mining of usage data (e.g. the frequency with which a name is looked up in the DNS) as this will invariably lead to lists being compiled that document how often certain non-existent domains are looked up via misspellings (direct navigation). Once such lists are put onto the open market, the Internet will be inundated with registrations that amount to nothing more than typo-squats of significant brands and/or of organizations (some non-commercial) that currently enjoy high rankings in the search engines. The NCUC does not endorse the promotion of such typosquatting activities. 63. The NCUC has also considered whether any policy is necessary to ensure non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to third parties. The NCUC notes that this issue parallels the prior issue of access to Bulk WHOIS data that is made available to third parties (on which policy has already been developed – see the Policy Report of the Names Council's WHOIS Task Force: Accuracy and Bulk Access ). It is the view of the NCUC that a Task Force should be convened to specifically target this topic as privacy issues are implicated and further discussion is warranted. In addition here is the url http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm that points to the Registry agreements that should be read in conjunction with Jon Nevett's email http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-pcceg-feb06/msg00485.html referring to Traffic Data provision from the .org Registry Agreement. Thank you. Kind regards Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org |