[gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Apr 27 08:17:03 UTC 2016
Thanks Chuck, for this reminder. One of the key reasons I keep pounding
away on the need to go back to basics and discuss the purpose of ICANN
governing, through the RAA and other instruments, the collection, use
and disclosure of registrant data, is to get to the bottom of how it
sets policy for information governance. This is because we need to be
sure that all aspects of information governance are within its mandate.
IF it has strayed into serving the information desires (I will not
accept the use of the term "needs") of a growing host of information
users, this indeed mirrors what has happened in the online world (how
fondly we privacy advocates look back on the first cookies scandals back
in 1996-2000, as compared with the network advertising initiative and
its members' activities after the Doubleclick debacle, let alone what
goes on today). It does not make it right, from a perspective of
fundamental rights. Certainly, the horse has long since left the barn,
but the unhappy job of regulators (and the civil society who fight
alongside them but often wish they would do a better job of it) is
always to go and find the horse and get it back to the barn, an often
thankless task.
I have had the opportunity lately of trying to explain to both academics
and data commissioners exactly how information is managed at ICANN, now
that I appear to have a better handle on it. It is crystal clear that
getting a grip on this, if one is not immersed in ICANN or the domain
name management business, is not that easy. For instance, I suspect
(but have nothing but apocryphal data collected to support) that data
commissioners have spent more time discussing whois policy with their
cctld managers, failing to understand that ICANN has less influence on
these matters. They have focused less on the RAA. It might be useful
for this team to either get a briefing, or get the documentation arising
from, Nigel Hickson's trip to Germany to discuss the
correspondence/impasse between ICANN and the article 29 group with
respect to waivers and the RAA more generally. If we have a report on
that in our document list, I have somehow missed it.
Kind regards,
Stephanie
On 2016-04-27 0:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> With regard to the RAA as well as registry agreements with gTLD
> registries, one of the possible outcomes of this WG is the
> recommendation of consensus policies. As I think many of you know,
> gTLD registries and registrars are required in their agreements to
> implement consensus policies approved by the Board so the consensus
> policies would become a requirement in the applicable agreements.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan
> Kawaguchi
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:01 PM
> *To:* Stephanie Perrin; gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> I disagree that we accepted the RAA as fait accompli. I think the
> whole EWG team spent many hours discussing any view point in reference
> to registration data purpose, collection and display. We also
> reviewed any document that was brought to our attention from DPA’s or
> Article 29 WP. We may not have agreed on the interpretation and
> meaning of those documents but we discussed data collection and
> privacy more than any other topic since it was so crucial to our work.
>
> Best,
>
> Susan Kawaguchi
>
> Domain Name Manager
>
> Facebook Legal Dept.
>
> *From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> *Date: *Monday, April 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM
> *To: *"gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org>"
> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question
>
> I would actually disagree. We discussed the use cases for data,
> accepting those current uses as by and large legitimate. From a data
> protection perspective, it has been clear from the very beginning that
> many of the new purposes that registrant data were being put to, would
> not be permissible by law under the original purpose of WHOIS. We
> never looked at the collection instrument, (RAA) it was accepted as
> fait accompli. We did not go over the extensive collection of
> documents that we had received from the DPAs. So a thorough, tabula
> rasa discussion of the purpose of collection of registrant data is in
> order, in my view. And SAC 055 agrees with that view.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2016-04-25 17:34, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>
> ...and FWIW, the Review Team's final report was a very important
> substrate upon which the EWG's work was advanced.
>
> The EWG spent an inordinate amount of time resolving the question
> as to whether there was a purposeful need for registration data
> and if so, what should be collected, the standards for collection,
> how it should be curated and the safeguards, why and how it should
> be published and the mechanisms for publication.
>
> I say again, it would be a sign of malignancy to embrace any
> attempt to bounce the rubble here. If there is new and original
> insight of value to the end game, let it be heard.
>
> Otherwise, enough good minds and treasure are exhausted answering
> those questions.
>
> Lets get on with it.
>
> -Carlton
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
> =============================
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Kathy Kleiman
> <kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Marika and All,
> I think my concerns run to (iii) and (v) below as the limitations
> of certain documents (especially ones people refer to often) have
> definitely been a part of the discussion of this subgroup. I
> would note that certain document in the summaries already contain
> some red highlighted notes, and I would like to request that
> similar notes be added *within our summary* of the Whois Review
> Team Final Report and within our subgroup report to the full WG.
> Here are the bullet points you requested (tx for asking!):
>
> - The Whois Review Team was/expressly barred from looking at the
> purpose of the Whois system/. It was allowed to look only at
> ICANN's "existing policy relating to WHOIS" per the Affirmation of
> Commitments signed between US Department of Commerce and ICANN in
> 2009.
>
> - Even within that scope, the Whois Review Team Final Report
> expressly recommended protection of privacy for commercial
> companies, noncommercial organizations and individuals (finding
> that each shared with us legal and legitimate reasons for privacy
> including as-yet-unannounced mergers, new movie names, unpopular
> religious, ethnic and policy views, etc).
>
> - The Whois Review Team Final Report advised ICANN to work towards
> a standard of "contactability" /- reaching the registrant by some
> means rather than all means /- which we wrote as: "ICANN should
> take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS
> registrations that fall into the accuracy groups Substantial
> Failure and Full Failure (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy
> Study, 2009/10..." p. 87.
>
> We were tasked with conveying to the full WG our understanding of
> "purpose" as guided by these documents - and these notes add key
> insights and understandings to it (as we shared many times in
> presenting this Final Report to ICANN in 2012).
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2016 8:35 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
>
> Kathy, all, as a reminder, each sub-team is expected to answer the
>
> following questions in relation to the work it has undertaken:
>
> (i) Did this input inventory produce any insights to inform the
> WG¹s work
>
> plan?
>
> (ii) Which inputs are likely to be the most important [relevant]
> during WG
>
> deliberations and why?
>
> (iii) Which inputs, if any, generated the most discussion within
> the small
>
> team?
>
> (iv) Which inputs may be obsolete or super-ceded by subsequent work?
>
> (v) What input gaps, if any, may need to be addressed later?
>
> (vi) Other key takeaways from this input inventory the team wishes to
>
> share with the WG
>
> Your concern appears to fall under item v? If you would like to
> summarise
>
> your concerns in a few bullets, the sub-team can maybe use these
> to start
>
> building out the responses to the questions?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> On 22/04/16 15:13, "gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org on
> behalf
> of<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman>
>
> Kathy Kleiman"
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman><gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org
> on behalf
> of<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@kathykleiman.com>
>
> kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@kathykleiman.com>wrote:
>
> Hi Susan and Lisa,
>
> I have a question (which certainly does not have to be
> answered on a
>
> Friday afternoon), but some deep concerns have been raised on
> this list
>
> by people who helped created various documents and reports
> that we are
>
> now evaluating. For example, I raised the fact that it was
> completely
>
> out of scope for the Whois Review Team to evaluate the data
> collected in
>
> Whois and the primary purpose for which it was created. By the
>
> Affirmation of Commitments, we had to deal with the Whois
> system as it
>
> existed (and had been passed to ICANN from the National Science
>
> Foundation).
>
> We could not and did not address or deal with primary purpose.
> I think
>
> this limitation and fact is critical to the understanding and
> evaluation
>
> of the Whois Review Team report, especially as it applies to our
>
> question of "purpose."
>
> How can this point be added to Whois Review Team Final Report
> summary -
>
> perhaps in Additional Information? -- and to our discussion?
>
> Tx,
>
> Kathy
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose/attachments/20160427/2d8ebf5e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
mailing list