[Rt4-whois] Report input - privacy/proxy 'gaps' [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Emily Taylor]

Dear Peter,

Many thanks for your work on this draft.  I really like the way that you
have based your commentary on a bottom-up analysis of what the comments
said.  It shows that we have been listening to, and carefully analysing the
inputs that people have taken the trouble to give us.

I'm sure we'll be discussing it on today's call, and it's a pity that the
scheduling prevents you joining us.  I hope we will be able to have you on
our next call after this one, and we'll ensure that we have a good turn out.

My question in reading the proxy/privacy section is - apart from NCUC which
you referenced - did we have contrary views.  We have a lot of references
from law enforcement and IP constituency, but nothing at all from
registry/registrars or NCUC apart from that one quote.  I'm keen to ensure
that we present a balanced view of the inputs received, because it will give
a range of views.

All - please can we look out our notes of our face-to-face meetings.   I for
one took away a strong message from our call with the IPC that they had
*good* experiences of data release from a number of the larger providers,
and (while in a perfect world they may not want proxy/privacy services) were
able to live with them if they could have a predictable outcome.  This is
well captured in one of the recommendations, but doesn't quite come through
in the supporting text yet.

For the more radical recommendations - I'm not sure that I heard them being
asked for, even by the communities that you would expect to support them,
and therefore we need much more argumentation in the text to justify some of
the recommendations (if, indeed, the team can reach consensus on them).

Thank you again for a thorough and thoughtful piece of work Peter.  It
provides us with an excellent first draft on which to focus our discussions.

Kind regards

Emily

Kind regards

Emily


On 17 August 2011 10:16, Mikhail Yakushev <m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru> wrote:

>  Dear Peter, colleagues,****
>
> I have carefully reviewed Peter’s draft and mostly agree with the provided
> analysis.  I also would mostly agree with the suggested recommendations –
> but I think we need to discuss each of them separately to achieve the
> highest possible level of consensus within our team.****
>
> Kind regards,****
>
> Michael****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Nettlefold, Peter
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:48 AM
> *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Report input - privacy/proxy 'gaps'
> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]****
>
> ** **
>
> Hello all,****
>
> ** **
>
> Attached is the first section of the draft ‘gaps’ chapter, for review and
> comment.****
>
> ** **
>
> As you’ll see, this section covers accessibility and privacy issues, and it
> still has some gaps.****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve also drafted and included some recommendations on this issue, building
> on the public and law enforcement input and our own discussions. I hope
> these are helpful.****
>
> ** **
>
> As you’ll see, I’ve drawn a distinction between proxy and privacy services
> in the draft chapter, and this will need some further work (but I didn’t
> want to delay getting this out to you any further while I worked on this).
> I’ve tried to unpack this distinction in the draft chapter, but also wanted
> to also explain my thinking to you. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The main challenge identified by responses to our consultation processes,
> and in our own discussions, is to find a way to balance any legitimate
> privacy concerns with the interests of other stakeholders. The position I’ve
> put forward in the draft chapter is that this can be achieved through the
> regulated use of *privacy* services (i.e. services that make the identity
> of the registrant known, but limit availability to other personal data – at
> least in the first instance). *Proxy* services, which replace the name of
> the registrant with that of another entity, are quite different in nature,
> and I think that these services raise serious questions about ICANN’s
> ability to enforce its AoC obligations. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I have drafted the chapter with this distinction in mind, although some
> parts of the argument need a bit more work.****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m aiming to circulate the next section of the draft chapter - on accuracy
> - in a day or two, and the section on compliance shortly after that.****
>
> ** **
>
> Unfortunately the next call is now scheduled for 1am my time, so I won’t be
> attending.****
>
> ** **
>
> I look forward to discussing this further as we work towards our Marina del
> Ray meeting.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Peter****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *****
>
> The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only
> and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review,
> re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any
> action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
> the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security
> Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
> Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and
> delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.****
>
> ** **
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.****
>
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>


-- 




*
*

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu

*www.etlaw.co.uk*

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110817/6002b2ff/attachment.html