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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > TV dinner still cooling? > > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. > > http://tv.yahoo.com/ > > > >