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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To: PDPfeb06
> >>> <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>>>> From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>>>> 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
> ***************************************************************
>
>
|
