New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs
Dear Council members, As agreed, I have modified the ToR in line with the discussions at the Council call 16 February, with most valued help from other staff attending the call. See attachment. I have used the paragraph wordings supplied to the list by Ross and Bruce (taking the latest submission in one case when both had provided slightly different texts) and staff notes for a couple of other agreed changes. I must emphasize that the exact outcome was not always crystal clear so please consider the new draft carefully. Also, regarding Marilyn's recent mail, the expression "privacy rights" remains in 5a, but I do share Marilyn's concern that this expression may be amiss. It is probably not "intellectual property rights" we're looking for either and it may be appropriate to use a more explicit sentence to capture the gist of what is intended. Best regards Olof
Perhaps the term is "proprietary rights" or various forms of proprietary rights". _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:19 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs Dear Council members, As agreed, I have modified the ToR in line with the discussions at the Council call 16 February, with most valued help from other staff attending the call. See attachment. I have used the paragraph wordings supplied to the list by Ross and Bruce (taking the latest submission in one case when both had provided slightly different texts) and staff notes for a couple of other agreed changes. I must emphasize that the exact outcome was not always crystal clear so please consider the new draft carefully. Also, regarding Marilyn's recent mail, the expression "privacy rights" remains in 5a, but I do share Marilyn's concern that this expression may be amiss. It is probably not "intellectual property rights" we're looking for either and it may be appropriate to use a more explicit sentence to capture the gist of what is intended. Best regards Olof
'Proprietary rights' wouldn't cover the data protection aspect. Under EU legislation at least, data protection does not in any way imply ownership of the data by the data subject, but rather a set of obligations on the user. I suggest, simply; 'rights'. Maria _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:56 PM To: 'olof nordling'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs Perhaps the term is "proprietary rights" or various forms of proprietary rights". _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:19 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs Dear Council members, As agreed, I have modified the ToR in line with the discussions at the Council call 16 February, with most valued help from other staff attending the call. See attachment. I have used the paragraph wordings supplied to the list by Ross and Bruce (taking the latest submission in one case when both had provided slightly different texts) and staff notes for a couple of other agreed changes. I must emphasize that the exact outcome was not always crystal clear so please consider the new draft carefully. Also, regarding Marilyn's recent mail, the expression "privacy rights" remains in 5a, but I do share Marilyn's concern that this expression may be amiss. It is probably not "intellectual property rights" we're looking for either and it may be appropriate to use a more explicit sentence to capture the gist of what is intended. Best regards Olof
Hi, I tend to think that privacy rights should be specifically enumerated. I don't fully understand the notion of registries having any proprietary rights to registry information, though I expect they do receive some use rights. This may be a case for enumerated several rights; i.e. "and which rights, including but not limited to, privacy and use rights ..." I also have trouble with the word exists. What does it mean for a right to exist in something? I am not, obviously, one of the lawyers in the council, but i would think that this set of possible rights 'pertain to' or are 'associated with' (i am sure there is a perfect legal term) the date instead of existing within. To put it another way, are rights an attribute of the data? a. On 19 feb 2006, at 21.09, Maria Farrell wrote:
'Proprietary rights' wouldn't cover the data protection aspect. Under EU legislation at least, data protection does not in any way imply ownership of the data by the data subject, but rather a set of obligations on the user.
I suggest, simply; 'rights'.
Maria
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:56 PM To: 'olof nordling'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs
Perhaps the term is “proprietary rights” or various forms of proprietary rights”…
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:19 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs
Dear Council members,
As agreed, I have modified the ToR in line with the discussions at the Council call 16 February, with most valued help from other staff attending the call. See attachment. I have used the paragraph wordings supplied to the list by Ross and Bruce (taking the latest submission in one case when both had provided slightly different texts) and staff notes for a couple of other agreed changes. I must emphasize that the exact outcome was not always crystal clear so please consider the new draft carefully.
Also, regarding Marilyn’s recent mail, the expression “privacy rights” remains in 5a, but I do share Marilyn’s concern that this expression may be amiss. It is probably not “intellectual property rights” we’re looking for either and it may be appropriate to use a more explicit sentence to capture the gist of what is intended.
Best regards
Olof
I don't believe that this suggestion takes an appropriate approach to the issue. As I mentioned on the call, this entire section tends to miss the point that there is a very strong case to be made that the registries have *no* rights in this data and that any rights in that data more properly accrue to registrants (moreso) and registrars (less so). The existing language presumes that the registries have some rights in the data not supported by existing policy. I promised alternate wording that takes this into account - I'm just back from a mini-vacation and will try to circulate tomorrow. Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I tend to think that privacy rights should be specifically enumerated. I don't fully understand the notion of registries having any proprietary rights to registry information, though I expect they do receive some use rights.
This may be a case for enumerated several rights; i.e. "and which rights, including but not limited to, privacy and use rights ..."
I also have trouble with the word exists. What does it mean for a right to exist in something? I am not, obviously, one of the lawyers in the council, but i would think that this set of possible rights 'pertain to' or are 'associated with' (i am sure there is a perfect legal term) the date instead of existing within. To put it another way, are rights an attribute of the data?
a.
On 19 feb 2006, at 21.09, Maria Farrell wrote:
'Proprietary rights' wouldn't cover the data protection aspect. Under EU legislation at least, data protection does not in any way imply ownership of the data by the data subject, but rather a set of obligations on the user.
I suggest, simply; 'rights'.
Maria
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:56 PM To: 'olof nordling'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs
Perhaps the term is “proprietary rights” or various forms of proprietary rights”…
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:19 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs
Dear Council members,
As agreed, I have modified the ToR in line with the discussions at the Council call 16 February, with most valued help from other staff attending the call. See attachment. I have used the paragraph wordings supplied to the list by Ross and Bruce (taking the latest submission in one case when both had provided slightly different texts) and staff notes for a couple of other agreed changes. I must emphasize that the exact outcome was not always crystal clear so please consider the new draft carefully.
Also, regarding Marilyn’s recent mail, the expression “privacy rights” remains in 5a, but I do share Marilyn’s concern that this expression may be amiss. It is probably not “intellectual property rights” we’re looking for either and it may be appropriate to use a more explicit sentence to capture the gist of what is intended.
Best regards
Olof
Olof, I have a few comments. First, thanks for getting this turned around, and for the incorporation of the changes, as provided by the discussion within the Council. I have a few comments. I just noticed that the actual document is mislabeled. It should continue to say "DRAFT Terms of Ref. etc. and perhaps even have a document number of such as Version 2.0, or whatever. Overall, we have to have a clear understanding, duly reflected in the ToR that this is about both existing and future gTLDs. The title is confusing, therefore. And in the goal, it references "long term" but not existing. I don't want to have any misunderstandings by the Board, staff, or community on this subject and I know that titles and wording are essential to ensure that there are no such misunderstandings. What is being called PDP -Dec05 does not address the same list of topics and I could not see us developing separate kinds of policies for "new" gTLDS than the existing ones, while I can see there being differences in the kinds of gTLDs. Finally, I notice that you have referenced in the last paragraph before the Goal statement that the two PDPs would be incorporated into a single gTLD policy. Since there are actually going to be - potentially-various policies that govern policy for existing and new gTLDs, perhaps the term of art is more a 'single set of policies for gTLDs. I doubt there will be a "single" policy. "-) So, this draft version will need more editing, to incorporate some of these and probably other clarifications, and we should all try to get any suggestions/clarifications to you, so that you can incorporate them, and get the GC to review them before our next Council meeting on Thursday. Thanks again for your work. I see both of us are online on our Sundays! Marilyn _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:19 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs Dear Council members, As agreed, I have modified the ToR in line with the discussions at the Council call 16 February, with most valued help from other staff attending the call. See attachment. I have used the paragraph wordings supplied to the list by Ross and Bruce (taking the latest submission in one case when both had provided slightly different texts) and staff notes for a couple of other agreed changes. I must emphasize that the exact outcome was not always crystal clear so please consider the new draft carefully. Also, regarding Marilyn's recent mail, the expression "privacy rights" remains in 5a, but I do share Marilyn's concern that this expression may be amiss. It is probably not "intellectual property rights" we're looking for either and it may be appropriate to use a more explicit sentence to capture the gist of what is intended. Best regards Olof
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Maria Farrell -
Marilyn Cade -
olof nordling -
Ross Rader