Fwd: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] current proposal

Mon Mar 5 04:27:22 CET 2007

It is worse than that -- we were (it's beyond the deadline now, so 
elections are closed and I hope to receive results in the mail in the 
morning) doing our elections and as usual only 3-4 people debated 
anything in our list. With or without elections, the big deal is NCUC is 
  a sleepwalker. Anyway, I guess similar difficulties might be happening 
in other constituencies.

--c.a.

Mawaki Chango wrote:
> It is a pitty, though. because if decisions are made against the
> values for which people have formed this constituency that has
> already a weak voice by design, the others won't come apologize to us
> saying "sorry, we know NCUC didn't get to speak because you were
> having elections; now please let us know what you think."
> 
> Anyway, I'm sure it's no big deal.
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> --- Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> ***************************************************************
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++