Fwd: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] current proposal

[Mawaki Chango]

There were two opposing views regarding the request below. Is there
any chance we get a clear sense of the constituency position on this?
Danny, I would hope otherwise that you have changed your mind after
my clarification - supposing it was indeed clarifying.

This is now urgent, please react.

Mawaki


--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hmm... is it the verb "collected" the problem, or do you mean to
> say
> there is no such thing as "traffic data" at the registry level?
> there
> are registry reps participating in these discussions, I haven't
> heard
> any of them say they don't know what traffic data is, or that they
> don't use it. And the language you quote from the contracts just
> confirms the contrary. 
> 
> Or did you want to mean that there is not use of identifiable, or
> disclosure of personal, data? I beleive the draft recommendation is
> not necessarily limited to that category only. And what you find
> troubling about the contract language may be part of the issues
> that
> might be addressed by the recommended study.
> 
> Unless I totally misunderstood your point, or the WG's (rapporteur
> group) proposal, which is always possible.
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> --- Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Re:  there is a need for a properly targeted study by
> > an independent third party on the data collected and
> > the uses to which it is put. 
> > 
> > Sorry, but I really don't see the need for a study. 
> > To my knowledge, no registry has yet begun collecting
> > such data nor have they been making commercial use of
> > such data.  How exactly would someone study the
> > current non-use of registry data?
> > 
> > The relevant contract language is here:
> > 
> > Traffic Data.  Nothing in this Agreement shall
> > preclude Registry Operator from making commercial use
> > of, or collecting, traffic data regarding domain names
> > or non-existent domain names for purposes such as,
> > without limitation, the determination of the
> > availability and health of the Internet, pinpointing
> > specific points of failure, characterizing attacks and
> > misconfigurations, identifying compromised networks
> > and hosts, and promoting the sale of domain names;
> > provided, however, that such use does not disclose
> > domain name registrant, end user information or other
> > Personal Data as defined in Section 3.1(c)(ii) for any
> > purpose not otherwise authorized by this agreement. 
> > The process for the introduction of new Registry
> > Services shall not apply to such traffic data.  
> > 
> > What is troubling about the language is that
> > (1)traffic data is exempt from the Registry Services
> > Evaluation Process; (2) the purpose for data
> > collection is too open-ended, and (3) the usage of
> > data pertaining to non-existent domain names will
> > assuredly promote massive typosquatting.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Danny
> > 
> > --- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> > 
> > > Within the framework of the PDP on the existing
> > > registry's
> > > contractual conditions, the constituency's position
> > > is required BY
> > > WEDNESDAY on the draft recommendation below.
> > > 
> > > My own position is positive.
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Mawaki
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > To: PDPfeb06 <pdp-pcceg-feb06 at gnso.icann.org>
> > > > From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> > > > Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] current proposal
> > > > Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:27:52 -0500
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > In order to determine there is a need for a new
> > > consensus policy on
> > > >  
> > > > the use of registry data, including traffic data,
> > > for purposes
> > > > other  
> > > > then which is was collected, there is 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
> > > provides which
> > > > data.  
> > > > The findings of the study should be published in
> > > an appropriately  
> > > > transparent manner.
> > > > 
> > > > A SOW will be developed by the council, with
> > > appropriate public  
> > > > review, to cover an analysis of the concerns, the
> > > collection and
> > > > use  
> > > > of data, and the non disciminatory acces to that
> > > data.
> > > > 
> > > > It is recommended that a current processes
> > > document be developed , 
> > > > 
> > > > describing the current practices of the collection
> > > of data, what
> > > > the  
> > > > data is used for, e.g. 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,
> > > >  
> > > > etc. as example broad categories, and published as
> > > a
> > > > guideline for Registry data collection and use.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > TV dinner still cooling? 
> > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
> > http://tv.yahoo.com/
> > 
> 
>