ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[pdp-pcceg-feb06]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Current Status on Recommendation for ToR 5
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 12:07:38 -0500

Hi,

Thank you for registering NCUC's abstention on this proposal.

a.

On 1 mar 2007, at 11.26, Mawaki Chango wrote:


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.










<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy