Fwd: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] current proposal

[Mawaki Chango]

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
>