I am not suggesting that registreis have such rights, by the way. however, I am pretty sure that privacy isn't the right word for what we are trying to examine. Whether "rights" are conveyed by the license a registry receives from ICANN to manage a GTLD registry is what we are trying to examine, I think. -----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:40:52 Cc:GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] New draft ToR for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs 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

Regards, Marilyn Cade