Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Term of Reference 5: Precis of existing positions

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff

Everyone said yes there should be more work done on 5b but it was not  
specified WHAT work which was why I've seeded the questions.

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 18 Jan 2007, at 16:39, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Liz,
>
>
>
> I think we need to go back and analyze the results on 5(b).  For  
> example, I thought the NCUC was saying that more work needed to be  
> done but not “yes” to there should be “nondiscriminatory access”.   
> In fact, there statement was pretty clear that they thought there  
> shouldn’t be.  In other words, for 5(b) what were people saying yes  
> to.  Was it:
>
>
>
> 1)       Yes, there should be nondiscriminatory access or
>
> 2)       Yes, more work needs to be done.
>
>
>
> More comments to follow.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development
> NeuStar, Inc.
> From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg- 
> feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:01 AM
> To: PDPfeb06
> Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Term of Reference 5: Precis of existing  
> positions
>
>
>
> Colleagues
>
>
>
> I have been following the traffic on TOR 5 since the conference  
> call on Tuesday.  I don't know whether everyone is up to speed on  
> the views of each constituency and I have included a summary of the  
> positions so far.  We are working towards determining where there  
> is some level of agreement on two remaining questions which will be  
> discussed in the 23 Jan and 6 Feb conference calls.
>
>
>
> TERM OF REFERENCE 5
>
> Uses of registry data
>
>
>
> 5a Examine 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.
>
>
>
> Policy Recommendation Q:  There should be a policy regarding the  
> use of registry data [which includes traffic data] for purposes  
> other than that for which it was
>
> collected.
>
>
>
> Yes: Registrar, NCUC, IPC, BC, ISP, RC
>
> No:  Registry
>
>
>
> Clear support for a policy regarding the use of registry data.
>
>
>
> The outstanding question is what the elements of that policy should  
> be beyond that which is already contained in the existing registry  
> contracts.  Please refer to the provision in the .org agreement as  
> a starting point.
>
>
>
> 3. 1(f) Traffic Data. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude  
> Registry Operator from making commercial use of, or collecting,  
> traffic data regarding domain names or non-existent domain names  
> for purposes such as, without limitation, the determination of the  
> availability and health of the Internet, pinpointing specific  
> points of failure, characterizing attacks and misconfigurations,  
> identifying compromised networks and hosts and promoting the sale  
> of domain names, provided however, that such use does not permit  
> Registry Operator to disclose domain name registrant or end-user  
> information or other Personal Data as defined in Section 3.1(c)(ii)  
> that it collects through providing domain name registration  
> services for any purpose not otherwise authorized by this  
> agreement. In this regard, in the event the TLD registry is a  
> "thick" registry model, the traffic data that may be accessible to  
> and used by Registry Operator shall be limited to the data that  
> would be accessible to a registry operated under a "thin" registry  
> model. The process for the introduction of new Registry Services  
> shall not apply to such traffic data. Nothing contained in this  
> section 3.1(f) shall be deemed to constitute consent or  
> acquiescence by ICANN to an introduction by Registry Operator of a  
> service employing a universal wildcard function. To the extent that  
> traffic data subject to this provision is made available, access  
> shall be on terms that are nondiscriminatory.
>
>
>
> 5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure non- 
> discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to  
> third parties.
>
>
>
> Policy Recommendation R:   There should be a policy to ensure non- 
> discriminatory access to registry data that is made available, but  
> that policy should include safeguards on protection against misuse  
> of the data. [and that the work needs to be completed by the TF]
>
>
>
> Yes: Registrar, NCUC, IPC, BC, ISP, RC
>
> No:  Registry
>
>
>
> There is support for a policy to ensure non-discriminatory access  
> to registry data that is made available to third parties.
>
>
>
> Examples of elements of that policy should be equal pricing and  
> equal treatment on requests for data [not dissimilar to the  
> approach taken in the telecommunications world on incumbent  
> interconnection pricing]
>
>
>
> The safeguards on protection against misuse of the data need  
> further examination and require suggestions from the TF members.
>
>
>
> In preparation for our conference call on 23 January, please  
> provide further suggestions about possible policy elements on 5a  
> and 5b.
>
>
>
> Kind regards.
>
>
>
> Liz
>
>
>
> .....................................................
>
>
>
> Liz Williams
>
> Senior Policy Counselor
>
> ICANN - Brussels
>
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
>
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
>
> +32 497 07 4243 mob