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

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

We will also be submitting a short statement as to our rationale in the
next couple of days when we get buyoff.

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: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:37 PM
To: David W. Maher
Cc: PDPfeb06
Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Current Status on Recommendation for ToR
5

Hi,

Thank you for recording your non support of the proposed recommendation.

a.

On 27 feb 2007, at 13.24, David W. Maher wrote:

> The Registry Constituency has voted NO on this question, i.e. no  
> support.
> David
> At 03:03 PM 2/25/2007, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>