<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-whois] Addendum to WHOIS TF Report in front of GNSO Council
I am
pleased to join Tony Harris in announcing that the WHOIS report will be
forwarded to the Board. There will be a discussion of privacy in Rio, on the
Council agenda.
We
both thank you for all of your work, and in particular, for those who have led
teams in the development of the Issues Reports, while also focusing on
finalizing the Report. And we thank, once again, the community of
interested stakesholders who have participated in the process.
Next
week's call will have at least three agenda items:
I.Ram
has agreed to try to schedule a guest speaker.
II. Reports from Issues Teams
III.
Team work on Privacy Issues Report:
Tony
and I would like to announce that next Tuesday's call agenda will include a
brainstorming session on identifying the privacy questions and issues. This is
not intended to merely review the submissions we have had so far. All of us
have read them. This is to extend the data gathering for the Issues Report
on Privacy. time is short for us to get something drafted and published. I
do not believe that Issues Reports necessarily have to be posted for
comment, however, I would like to have a structured way to have organized,
thoughtful consultation on the issues and questions which the Issues Report
should encompass.
What
we would ask from each of the TF members is to focus in on facts and
examples. Information about the different kinds of registrants in gTLDs,
for instance. Studies or reports which are fact based would be useful
contributions to the TF as resources.
So is the answer
to my question yes, from your point of view?
Steve,
My constituency members are saying that they are under
considerable pressure from legal, corporate, community and other bodies
to tie implementation of better accuracy and privacy together, so that
enhanced accuracy standards and mechanisms do not lead to unlawful
privacy methods/practices (for those who operate under the EU Data
protection restrictions, for instance).
-ram
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003
9:44 AM
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Addendum to
WHOIS TF Report in front of GNSO Council
Does this mean
that implementation of the accuracy recommendations should be delayed
until one or more PDPs regarding privacy are concluded?
Dear Whois Task Force:
My constituency met yesterday to discuss the Whois
Task Force reports on Accuracy and Bulk Whois Access, prior to the vote
on approving these reports in the GNSO Council.
The gTLD Constituency endorses these reports, with the
following addendum, which it requests be added to the report prior
to consideration by the GNSO Council and the ICANN
Board.
"At the time of implementation, Privacy and Accuracy
must be linked together and not addressed independently.
Furthermore, Privacy issues may require modifications to existing
Consensus Policy."
The gTLD registries are concerned that once Consensus
Policy is endorsed, particulalry in the area of Accuracy, any such
policy cannot (and should not) be implemented without providing due
consideration to Privacy.
Since this statement has to do with implementation of
our TF's suggested policies, I view it as a benign
change.
Regards,
Ram
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ram
Mohan
Vice President, Business Operations
Chief Technology
Officer
Afilias (http://www.afilias.info)
p:
215-706-5700 x103; f: 215-706-5701
e: rmohan@afilias.info
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|