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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Although NCUC replied positively to the previous version of the
recommendations to TOR-5 as to whether there should be a policy
regarding the use of registry/traffic data, and whether any such
policy should ensure non-discriminatory access to the data (including
safeguards against misuse, etc.,)

NCUC has not been able to determine a clear support or rejection of
the new recommendation, specifically on the point of commissioning an
external/independent study on the data collected and its uses.

Please note that the main reason for rejection was the distrust in
the face of the poor track record, argue the tenent(s) of that
position, of use of ICANN/GNSO independent reports. While the main
reason for supporting the current recommendation was that a study
would be expected to consistently help realize the objectives in the
previous recommendations NCUC agreed on, with probably better outcome
(so think the tenant(s) of this position.)

Ultimately, NCUC abstains to take a position on the need for an
independent study, and more generally, on the current recommendation
to TOR-5 of the PDP on the existing registry contractual conditions.

Best regards,

Mawaki 

--- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 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.
> 
> 
>