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 >