RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] a proposed recommendations for ToR 5

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

First, thanks for starting this thread...someone had to :)

But, let me ask the questions I have been asking since day 1 on this
TOR.

1)  WHY are we even addressing whether there should be a policy since we
have not identified the issues associated with the collection and use of
the data?

2)  WHY should we commission a study?  What are the issues that the
study would be addressing?  

3)  WHY would we spend the money to commission an outside agency for an
exhaustive study(which could cost thousands and thousands of dollars)?

4)  WHY is there a need for best practices, when we have not addressed
what the issues are?

For every policy discussion/PDP we have there should be a clear
statement of the problem and issues the PDP is trying to address. 

For example (and I know I am being extremely simplistic here...so please
don't argue with the illustrative examples):

1.  We commissioned a PDP on transfers because it was determined (and
documented) that there was a need for portability of domain names
between registrars and there were certain practices by some registrars
that were viewed by the community as impeding portability (among other
reasons).

2.  We commissioned a PDP on WHOIS for a number of documented reasons,
including, but not limited to:
        a)  Law Enforcement, IP owners, etc. believe there is a need to
unfettered access to accurate up to date whois information;
        b)  Privacy rights advocates believe that this need should be
balanced against the need for privacy of personal data;
        c)  Registrars began implementing their own mechanisms to deal
with these concerns
        d)  a, b, and c are often at odds with each other from a policy
perspective.  Thus, we need to come to a resolution

3.  We commissioned a PDP on new gTLDs because a number of policies
raised in the introduction of new TLDs (too many to go into here).

I can go on with other examples in regards to IDNs, the UDRP, RGP, etc.

However, I still don't understand why we would commission a PDP (or a
study) on traffic data? 

Please understand I am not trying to be obstructionist....just trying to
figure out what problem(s) we are trying to solve and whether those are
really problems that need solving.

PLEASE HELP!

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:05 PM
To: PDPfeb06
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] a proposed recommendations for ToR 5


On 31 jan 2007, at 16.39, Liz Williams wrote:

> I haven't seen any further traffic on the TOR 5 proposed policy  
> recommendations -- is anyone going to start with a proposal?


Well since it was my suggestion that we should start with individual  
proposals, let me start with one.

a.

-----

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.

Proposed Recommendation:

a. There is no clear need for a new policy on the use of registry  
data, including traffic data, for purposes other then which is was  
collected.

b. There is, however, a need for exhaustive public study by an  
outside agency on the data collected and the uses to which it is put.

c. It is recommended that a best practices document be published as a  
guideline for Registry data collection and use



> 5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure non- 
> discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to  
> third parties.

a. There is currently no clear need for a new policy on the use of  
registry data, including traffic data, for purposes other then which  
is was collected.  Based on the results of the exhaustive external  
study and public discussions recommended in 5a (b), the GNSO council  
should consider the creation of a PDP that would include policy  
recommendations for new, as well as for existing Registry agreements.