RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] a proposed recommendations for ToR 5
>From Marilyn Cade I have provided a redraft of Avri's recommendations, and attached it as marked up text. My marked up text is easy to walk through on the call. I am expecting the staff to summarize the comments made previously in both constituency statements and in the last working session that identify the 'issues and concerns'. Given that, the BC hasn't spent a lot of time redeveloping our previous statements, however, it is useful to just mesmerize what was stated earlier, and was restated on the last working call. The short version of the BC's concerns, again, for the record: The BC has concerns about the uses of traffic data; and potentially registry data. If there is data being gathered that is needed to inform not only the registry but also up stream providers, such as backbone providers and ISPs, related to network security implications, the BC reps believe that an effective approach to providing that data in a proper manner needs to be included as a requirement. Secondly, if there is traffic being gathered about null returns on non registered names, the BC reps are concerned about the potential for use and misuse of that information. Registries are not allowed to be in the business of selling or marketing individual domain names. The information about null returns about a particular string could be easily misused, or could lead to further problems where there is encouragement of the registration of names that are merely 'traffic sites'. Overall, it is highly likely that the provision by the registries of fact based information will dispel many questions and concerns. Finally, it is worth noting that the future will possibly hold many new registries. With the larger number of registries, there may be opportunities for misuse of traffic data, if there are no guidelines, some of which could even be merely accidental. 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 consensus policy on the use of registry data, including traffic data, for purposes other then which is was collected. A alt. There is a need for a new consensus policy for the use of registry data, including traffic data, for purposes other than that for which is was collected. Such policy should include the requirement of a clear and conspicuous notice about the collection of data and the kinds of uses made of such data. b. There is a need for a properly targeted study by an independent third party on the data collected and the uses to which it is put. The study should provide appropriate safeguards to protect any data provided by registries for the purposes of the study, and the confidentiality of which registry provides which data. The findings of the study should be published in an appropriately transparent manner. c. It is recommended that a "best practices" document be developed , describing the current practices of the collection of data, what the data is used for, e.g. operating the registry; preparing marketing materials to promote registration of domain names; gathering of 'null' returns, ensuring the integrity of the Registry, or the DNS, etc. as example broad categories, and 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. 5b) a. After examining the results of the independent study and public discussions recommended in 5a (b), the GNSO council should request an Issues Report and examine its findings regarding the creation of a PDP that would include policy recommendations for new, as well as for existing Registry agreements related to registry/traffic data collection, uses, and third party access. 5b) b. Registry/traffic data may be linked to the development of third party services that can be provided by a number of parties. If this is the determination of the study referenced in 5a(b) above, there should be a policy to ensure non discriminatory access. -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:05 PM To: 'Avri Doria'; 'PDPfeb06' Cc: 'Alistair DIXON'; 'Marilyn Cade' Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] a proposed recommendations for ToR 5 My proposed additions to the agenda: *Report from the 'registry/staff' working effort [e.g the registries had accepted a request from the TF/a status report is needed for today} I am also providing separately a mark up on the draft recommendation. Regards, Marilyn Cade, BC Rep to the TF -----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. Attachment:
ICANN PDP 06 -ToR 5 recommendation redraft msc.doc
|