RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Current Status on Recommendation for ToR 5
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Current Status on Recommendation for ToR 5
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:30:53 -0500
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
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:37 PM
To: David W. Maher
Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Current Status on Recommendation for ToR
Thank you for recording your non support of the proposed recommendation.
On 27 feb 2007, at 13.24, David W. Maher wrote:
> The Registry Constituency has voted NO on this question, i.e. no
> At 03:03 PM 2/25/2007, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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
>> 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