[council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I tend to think that privacy rights should be specifically  
enumerated.  I don't fully understand the notion of registries having  
any proprietary rights to registry information, though I expect they  
do receive some use rights.

This may be a case for enumerated several rights; i.e.
"and which rights, including but not limited to, privacy and use  
rights ..."

I also have trouble with the word exists.  What does it mean for a  
right to exist in something?  I am not, obviously, one of the lawyers  
in the council, but i would think that this set of possible rights  
'pertain to' or are 'associated with' (i am sure there is a perfect  
legal term) the date instead of existing within.   To put it another  
way, are rights an attribute of the data?

a.


On 19 feb 2006, at 21.09, Maria Farrell wrote:

> 'Proprietary rights' wouldn't cover the data protection aspect.  
> Under EU legislation at least, data protection does not in any way  
> imply ownership of the data by the data subject, but rather a set  
> of obligations on the user.
>
> I suggest, simply; 'rights'.
>
> Maria
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:56 PM
> To: 'olof nordling'; council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual  
> conditions for existing gTLDs
>
> Perhaps the term is “proprietary rights” or various forms of  
> proprietary rights”…
>
>
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:19 PM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions  
> for existing gTLDs
>
>
>
> Dear Council members,
>
> As agreed, I have modified the ToR in line with the discussions at  
> the Council call 16 February, with most valued help from other  
> staff attending the call. See attachment. I have used the paragraph  
> wordings supplied to the list by Ross and Bruce (taking the latest  
> submission in one case when both had provided slightly different  
> texts) and staff notes for a couple of other agreed changes. I must  
> emphasize that the exact outcome was not always crystal clear so  
> please consider the new draft carefully.
>
>
>
> Also, regarding Marilyn’s recent mail, the expression “privacy  
> rights” remains in 5a, but I do share Marilyn’s concern that this  
> expression may be amiss. It is probably not “intellectual property  
> rights” we’re looking for either and it may be appropriate to use a  
> more explicit sentence to capture the gist of what is intended.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Olof
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20060219/f9543b7b/attachment.html>