It is worse than that -- we were (it's beyond the deadline now, so elections are closed and I hope to receive results in the mail in the morning) doing our elections and as usual only 3-4 people debated anything in our list. With or without elections, the big deal is NCUC is a sleepwalker. Anyway, I guess similar difficulties might be happening in other constituencies. --c.a. Mawaki Chango wrote: > 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 >> *************************************************************** >> >> > > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++