Council Members and All:
I agree completely with Milton's Paragraph 3
suggestion. My biggest fear comes from the loose language in the last
proposed paragraph. After Resolution 5, this unnumbered paragraph
states:
"The GNSO Council notes that the current
definition is related
to the service that provides public
access to some or all of the
data collected, and is not a definition of the
purpose of the data itself."
I am very worried. To me this line can be read to change our Task
Force Terms of Reference -- the charter of the group. For years we have
dutifully done our job. We defined the Purpose of Whois (Terms of
Reference #2), and we are now looking at what data should be public (part 1 of
TOR #3) and what data should be private (part 2 of TOR #3).
TOR #(3) "Determine what
data collected should be available
for public access in the
context of the purpose of WHOIS.
Determine how to access
data that is not available for public access."
Thus the Whois TF -- and our Purpose of Whois -- covers not only future
public information, but also the future of the data currently public and soon
(hopefully!) to be made private. The use of this accumulated data of
63 million domain name registrants is **specifically in the Whois Task
Force charter for recommendation to the Council** and that upsets our IP, ISP
and BC friends.
Of course, Registrars and Registries can continue to collect and use this
data for technical and business purposes, but the intent of the Council and Task
Force was always to evaluate which data should be continue to public under the
Purpose, and what access should be allowed to the data that is private. We
could not, for example, allow unlimited access to the newly private data to
direct marketers -- that is completely contrary to why the data went private to
begin with. This newly private personal data **should have limitations to
our new Purpose of Whois.** (That's also consistent with EU Data Protection
law. You cannot collect data for one purpose and use it for another.
Here, the data was always collected for a technical purpose, we have now made it
explicit in writing. You cannot say that just because certain of this data
is made private, it is now available for completely unrelated purposes.)
So access to the newly-private data by others is **a key part of the Whois
TF review process.** (Privately, of course IPC, BC and ISP Constituencies
would like to take this outside the scope of the Whois TF -- and that's exactly
what we cannot allow to happen.)
I would recommend that we strongly go after this paragraph. Ways to do
so:
1) Delete it -- it is only a "note" by the Council. Since it is not
a resolution or binding part of the text, and since it is very ambiguous, just
delete it.
2) Amend it -- alas, I have no good amendment since the whole
concept is flawed, but perhaps:
"The GNSO Council notes that the current
definition is related
to the [add: Whois] [S]service
[add: and the data may continue to be
collected by the Registrars and Registries
for technical and business purposes]
[strike: that provides public access to some
or all of the data collected,
and is not a definition of the purpose of the
data itself."]
Thanks so much of all the work ahead on this. And thanks for
including us on the discussions on Council....BTW, if they (other Council
members) say I am misreading this, then asking them to clarify the text (in
writing) to make sure my reading is not a possible one should get them to move a
bit... :-)
Regards and thanks,
Kathy