Fwd: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] current proposal

[Carlos Afonso]

Which at this point is reasonable -- the constituency is silent except
for the usual 3-4 suspects, and we have been going through an electoral
process (which will end on March 04). Hope most members do vote, and we
will have renewed energy (with the same suspects only?) from next Monday :)

frt rgds

--c.a.

Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Hi Danny,
> 
> though it bothers me a little that your reasons are external (what
> happened to the other studies, and what may happen to this one) to
> the needs and rationale of this process itself, I do think there is
> no reason for my opinion to outweigh yours. So if we don't hear from
> any other views within 12 hrs, I will post to the WG that NCUC
> abstains on this.
> Thanks,
> 
> Mawaki  
> 
> --- Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mawaki,
>>
>> Having experied "studies" before within the ICANN
>> process I am somewhat reluctant to support yet another
>> study that will wind up being buried somewhere.  I
>> recall the ALSC study and the Summit Strategies Study
>> and the more recent LSE study as well as Patrick
>> Sharry's study (whitewash) of the GNSO Council (among
>> others).  If you wish to pursue the study approach I
>> will not oppose, but I will not endorse.  I believe
>> that policy on the use of traffic data can be crafted
>> without the need to commission a study.   
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Danny
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> === message truncated ===
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Be a PS3 game guru.
>> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at
>> Yahoo! Games.
>> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************