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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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.