<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><i><b>We submit
the following comments (below and attached) to the EWG
on the issue of Data Elements and Need for Second
Interim Report for Community Review.<br>
</b></i></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><i><b>Sincerely,</b></i><i><b><br>
</b></i> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Kathy
Kleiman<br>
Tamir Israel<br>
Milton Mueller<br>
Roy Balleste<br>
Robin Gross<br>
Avri Doria<br>
Marie-Laure Lemineur<br>
Peter Green<br>
Edward Morris <br>
All members of the NCSG<br>
</span></i></b></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.3 (Win32)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--></style>************************************************************************************************<font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><i><b><br>
Data
Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN
Community; a
Second Interim Report & Public Notice </b></i></font></font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">Throughout
the Durban meeting process, the same question was asked
again and
again: </font></font><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4"><i><b>what
data elements is the EWG proposing for the Centralized
Database (or
any Whois database)? </b></i></font></font><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4">
We received no clear answer.</font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">The
reason for the question is clear: in light of the abuses of
Whois
data, the laws that protect personal data, both for data
protection
and freedom of expression reasons, the dangers of
centralized data,
and the very personal and controversial nature of some of
the data
elements proposed for inclusion in the new database or
databases, </font></font><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4"><i><b>the
specific data elements are very, very important to the
public policy
discussion that the EWG has asked to take place. </b></i></font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">We
in the NCSG strongly recommend a future Whois/gTLD Directory
database(s) fully streamlined with clear, minimal
information (e.g.,
operating at the minimal “contactability” standard
recommended by
the Whois Review Team with only technical data and a
validated
telephone number OR email address). Such a database raises
few of the
privacy, speech and scope concerns that caused passionate
comments
and criticisms at the microphone in the EWG Durban meeting.
</font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">But
the EWG Report, read closely</font></font><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><i><b>,
includes the collection of numerous new data elements
including those
not even currently collected by Registrars today.
Frankly, it was
shocking for us to see such the EWG Report and its list
of data
elements. Such a collection of all possible information
and data for
all possible purposes without regard to legality, scope
of ICANN,
impossibility or dangers it presents is not appropriate
and threatens
the narrow scope, limit and fabric of ICANN. </b></i></font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4"><u>Accordingly,
we reject for inclusion in any future Whois/Directory
Database
records which include:</u><br>
Registrant
Postal Address </font></font>
</p>
<font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4">Registrant
Telephone Number AND Email Address (as only one is needed and
validated per the Registrar Accreditation Agreement)</font></font><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><br>
Registrant
IP Address</font></font><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4"><br>
Registrant
Type</font></font><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4"><br>
Registrant
Purpose</font></font><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4"><br>
And
many other fields presented without clear explanation as to
definition, scope or purpose. </font></font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">In
fact, we find morally offensive the new move to categorize
speech and
speakers through the new Directory Services in a way that
moves ICANN
squarely and fully into the role of speech monitor and
communications
overseer – so far outside ICANN’s limited technical scope
and
mission that these fields must be dropped immediately and
subject to
no further discussion. </font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4"><b>Conclusion:
</b></font></font>
</p>
<font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4">While
we have been told again and again that the EWG is still
“deciding
on the data elements, </font></font><font face="Calibri,
sans-serif"><font size="4"><i><b>we
must respectfully reject any final report that has not
previously
published the exact data elements proposed to be included
in a future
Whois/Directory Database prior to the final report -- in a
preliminary way that allows for initial evaluation,
feedback and
comment by the Community.</b></i></font></font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">But
on initial review, the drafts before us are shocking in
their scope,
excessive in their inclusion, and reflecting a wish list of
one
Stakeholder Group which happens to be over-represented on
the EWG. </font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b><i><font face="Calibri,
sans-serif"><font size="4">The NCSG
calls on the EWG to minimize and streamline information
Data Elements
proposed for any new Whois or Directory Service plan –
and to
publish it early and quickly for additional review by
the ICANN and
Internet Community </font></font></i></b><b><i><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><u>prior
to any final proposal.</u></font></font></i></b><b><i>
</i></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p>
</p>
</body>
</html>