Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Current Status on Recommendation for ToR 5

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks.  While not in their explicitly because it did not seem  
appropriate for the TF to write the SOW, it is my assumption that the  
Council, the group being asked to write the SOW if they accept the  
recommendation, would specifically exclude whois data.

I think it would be reasonable to list IPC as voting in favor and  
then including a comment that included your recommendation that this  
should not include whois data in the comments as it is too late to  
amend the proposed recommendation.  Would that work for you?  I think  
we have followed that pattern in a few other issues in the report.

thanks again
a.


On 27 feb 2007, at 04.52, Ute Decker wrote:

> Dear Avri et al.,
>
> Just to say that the IPC generally supports the recommendation,  
> assuming
> that this will not cover WHOIS data that is already addressed by a
> separate process.
>
> Best wishes
> Ute
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: 25 February 2007 21:04
> To: PDPfeb06
> Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Current Status on Recommendation for ToR 5
>
> Hi,
>
> As mentioned in my summary note, the proposed recommendation for ToR
> 5 was discussed and statements of support were requested from the
> constituencies and other TF members.
>
> The following is the text of the proposed recommendation followed by
> the current level of support.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > 5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure non-
> > discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to
> > third parties.
>
> Recommendation:
>
> In order to determine whether there is a need for a new consensus
> policy on the collection and use of registry data, including traffic
> data, for purposes other then which is was collected, there is first
> 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  for the
> purposes of the study, and the confidentiality of which registry, or
> other group, provides the data. The findings of the study should be
> published and available for public review.
>
> A SOW should be developed by the GNSO council, with appropriate
> public review, to cover an analysis of the concerns for data
> collection and use, the practice involved in collection and use of
> data - including traffic data, and the availability, when
> appropriate, for  non disciminatory access to that data.
>
> It is recommended that a current processes document be developed,
> describing the current Registry practices for the collection of data
> and the uses of that data; e.g. but not limited to, 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.  This report should be available to the
> group doing the external study and should be made available to the
> public for comment.
>
> After examining the results of the independent study and public
> discussions recommended above, the GNSO council should examine the
> findings and determine what, if any, further policy process is  
> required.
>
>
> ----
>
> Medium Support: BC, ISPC, RC + Doria
>
> Did not state a preference yet:  IPC, NCUC, RyC + Bekele, Greenberg
>
> Statement of preference (for inclusion in Draft Final Report for
> Review) due - 27 Feb, 2007
>
>
> thanks
> a.