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 > *************************************************************** > >