Team outputs - Summaries
During the 20 April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week?s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question: Which top 5 inputs summarized by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why? For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan? The following are personal choices and I am using these as an example of what we need to discuss BUT each sub team member needs to provide their input. WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-11may12-en.pdf> (2012) SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-055-en.pdf> (September 2012) EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>, especially - Section 3, Users and Purposes - Annex C, Example Use Cases Annex A, Board Questions Registrar Accreditation Agreement<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en> (2013) Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org <Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> Looking forward to a lively discussion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Dear Susan, dear all, I would list the following documents, in random order: 1. WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012), 2. GAC Communiqués (also reached via this link) regarding WHOIS (2007-2015), especially GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Services (2007), 3. Article 29 WP 203 Opinion 3/2013 (on purpose limitation), 4. EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS, especially section 3, Users and Purposes, I think documents no. 1, 2 and 4 are really useful (and quite exhaustive) for listing purposes that we should consider as part of our further steps. Document no. 3 is also very useful, but mainly because it allows us to better understand how to define purposes (e.g. "specific, explicit, legitimate") and assess issues like their compatibility. Best, Tjabbe From: gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 12:40 PM To: Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Team outputs - Summaries During the 20 April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week?s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question: Which top 5 inputs summarized by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why? For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan? The following are personal choices and I am using these as an example of what we need to discuss BUT each sub team member needs to provide their input. WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-11may12-en.pdf> (2012) SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-055-en.pdf> (September 2012) EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>, especially 1. Section 3, Users and Purposes 2. Annex C, Example Use Cases Annex A, Board Questions Registrar Accreditation Agreement<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en> (2013) Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> <Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> Looking forward to a lively discussion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Hello all, The documents I believe are most relevant to our charge are: 1. EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS, especially, - Section 3, Users and Purposes - Annex C, Example Use Cases - Annex A, Board Questions 2. WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012) 3. SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant (September 2012) 4. GAC Communique Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Services (2007) In my opinion, those contain the most relevant description of purposeful use for data. Other documents are useful in understanding concerns around the data and support the need for purpose definition (Article 29, WP 76). But, they do not specifically define our task of identifying the purpose users need of to the data. -Susan ~~~~ Susan Prosser VP, Client Services DomainTools, LLC T: (206) 838-9060 E: susan@domaintools.com PGP: A2C4D2A4 On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:31 AM, <Tjabbe.BOS@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
Dear Susan, dear all,
I would list the following documents, in random order:
1. WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012),
2. GAC Communiqués (also reached via this link) regarding WHOIS (2007-2015), especially GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Services (2007),
3. Article 29 WP 203 Opinion 3/2013 (on purpose limitation),
4. EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS, especially section 3, Users and Purposes,
I think documents no. 1, 2 and 4 are really useful (and quite exhaustive) for listing purposes that we should consider as part of our further steps. Document no. 3 is also very useful, but mainly because it allows us to better understand how to define purposes (e.g. "specific, explicit, legitimate") and assess issues like their compatibility.
Best, Tjabbe
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 12:40 PM *To:* Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Team outputs - Summaries
During the 20 April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week?s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question:
*Which top 5 inputs summarized by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why?*
For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan?
The following are personal choices and I am using these as an example of what we need to discuss BUT each sub team member needs to provide their input.
*WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>* (2012)*
*SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-055-en.pdf>* (September 2012)*
*EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>*, especially*
1. *Section 3, Users and Purposes*
2. *Annex C, Example Use Cases*
*Annex A, Board Questions*
*Registrar Accreditation Agreement* <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en>* (2013)*
Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org < Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>
Looking forward to a lively discussion.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
Attached are my summaries of the Perrin dissent, and the Article 29 Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation. I cannot find this latter document on the list (I could be blind) but it is critical for the interpretation of purpose so if it is not there it should be, in my view. Kind regards, Stephanie On 2016-04-19 12:31, Tjabbe.BOS@ec.europa.eu wrote:
Dear Susan, dear all,
I would list the following documents, in random order:
1.WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012),
2.GAC Communiqués (also reached via this link) regarding WHOIS (2007-2015), especially GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Services (2007),
3.Article 29 WP 203 Opinion 3/2013 (on purpose limitation),
4.EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS, especially section 3, Users and Purposes,
I think documents no. 1, 2 and 4 are really useful (and quite exhaustive) for listing purposes that we should consider as part of our further steps. Document no. 3 is also very useful, but mainly because it allows us to better understand how to define purposes (e.g. "specific, explicit, legitimate") and assess issues like their compatibility.
Best, Tjabbe
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 12:40 PM *To:* Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Team outputs - Summaries
During the 20 April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week?s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question:
/Which top 5 inputs summarized by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why?/
/
/For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan?
The following are personal choices and I am using these as an example of what we need to discuss BUT each sub team member needs to provide their input.
*WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>*(2012)*
*SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-055-en.pdf>* (September 2012)*
*EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>*, especially*
1.*Section 3, Users and Purposes*
2.*Annex C, Example Use Cases*
*Annex A, Board Questions*
*Registrar Accreditation Agreement* <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en>*(2013)*
Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org <mailto:discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org><Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>>
Looking forward to a lively discussion.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
Dear Susan, all, I would list the following inputs as most helpful: - WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012) - SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant (September 2012) - EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS - GAC Communiqués regarding WHOIS (2007-2015) - Article 29 WP on ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law (2007) As Tjabbe mentioned, some of these documents are both useful and exhaustive and, in my opinion, represent a comprehensive basis for the upcoming discussions in our PDP. Best regards, Maryan On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> wrote:
During the 20 April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week?s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question:
*Which top 5 inputs summarized by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why?*
For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan?
The following are personal choices and I am using these as an example of what we need to discuss BUT each sub team member needs to provide their input.
*WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>* (2012)*
*SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-055-en.pdf>* (September 2012)*
*EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>*, especially*
- *Section 3, Users and Purposes*
- *Annex C, Example Use Cases* *Annex A, Board Questions*
*Registrar Accreditation Agreement* <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en>* (2013)*
Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org < Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>
Looking forward to a lively discussion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
Hello Team, Thank you to Susan Prosser, Tjabbe Bos and Maryan Rizinski for providing their input on the most important documents and rationale. Would you each be able to discuss on the call your rationale for choosing these documents? I apologize for the late email but it would be helpful for the discussion on the call. Best, Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maryan Rizinski <rizinski@gmail.com<mailto:rizinski@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 4:26 PM To: "Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>" <Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Team outputs - Summaries Dear Susan, all, I would list the following inputs as most helpful: * WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012) * SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant (September 2012) * EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS * GAC Communiqués regarding WHOIS (2007-2015) * Article 29 WP on ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law (2007) As Tjabbe mentioned, some of these documents are both useful and exhaustive and, in my opinion, represent a comprehensive basis for the upcoming discussions in our PDP. Best regards, Maryan On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> wrote: During the 20 April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week?s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question: Which top 5 inputs summarized by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why? For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan? The following are personal choices and I am using these as an example of what we need to discuss BUT each sub team member needs to provide their input. WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> (2012) SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> (September 2012) EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>, especially - Section 3, Users and Purposes - Annex C, Example Use Cases Annex A, Board Questions Registrar Accreditation Agreement<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> (2013) Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> <Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> Looking forward to a lively discussion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Um9LPy5NeJc0bzCRJXJITjs11VDc-mPUdDoFstMAfSI&s=qf6vit6I1rXAt1biXQdG39XEAgFqhsuCFM0m4tsPeRU&e=>
It would be very much appreciated if the three of you could in just a few minutes each do this. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 12:51 AM To: Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Team outputs - Summaries Hello Team, Thank you to Susan Prosser, Tjabbe Bos and Maryan Rizinski for providing their input on the most important documents and rationale. Would you each be able to discuss on the call your rationale for choosing these documents? I apologize for the late email but it would be helpful for the discussion on the call. Best, Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maryan Rizinski <rizinski@gmail.com<mailto:rizinski@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 4:26 PM To: "Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>" <Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Team outputs - Summaries Dear Susan, all, I would list the following inputs as most helpful: * WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012) * SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant (September 2012) * EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS * GAC Communiqués regarding WHOIS (2007-2015) * Article 29 WP on ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law (2007) As Tjabbe mentioned, some of these documents are both useful and exhaustive and, in my opinion, represent a comprehensive basis for the upcoming discussions in our PDP. Best regards, Maryan On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> wrote: During the 20 April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week?s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question: Which top 5 inputs summarized by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why? For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan? The following are personal choices and I am using these as an example of what we need to discuss BUT each sub team member needs to provide their input. WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> (2012) SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> (September 2012) EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>, especially - Section 3, Users and Purposes - Annex C, Example Use Cases Annex A, Board Questions Registrar Accreditation Agreement<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> (2013) Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> <Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> Looking forward to a lively discussion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Um9LPy5NeJc0bzCRJXJITjs11VDc-mPUdDoFstMAfSI&s=qf6vit6I1rXAt1biXQdG39XEAgFqhsuCFM0m4tsPeRU&e=>
Hi Susan, Chuck, all, Sorry for not being able to join the call this morning. The schedule was too early for me to catch up with it as I was already commuting to work. At any rate, I am providing some textual input on my rationale for choosing the documents. *EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS* This comprehensive document has relevant sections that identify, analyze and define in a rigorous way the various categories of users and their purpose for accessing registration data. The analysis of the EWG is well structured and also carefully summarized in tables that are both detailed and, at the same time, precise and easy to read. In brief, the EWG recommendations provide a solid base for framing the questions that we are trying to address in our working group. The document is an excellent source of information that would help us facilitate our subsequent deliberations. *WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012)* This report is another comprehensive document similar to the EWG recommendations. It contains a number relevant parts that give hints to answering the question of what is the over-arching purpose of collecting, maintaining, and providing access to gTLD registration data. The importance of this question makes the WHOIS report relevant to this PDP. *SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant (September 2012)* SAC055 provides further insight into the WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012). In particular, SAC055 emphasizes the need of a single consensus policy, explains why the attempts to reach consensus failed repeatedly and suggests recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors to help overcome the challenges that occurred in the past. *GAC Communiqués regarding WHOIS (2007-2015)* The GAC principles regarding gTLD WHOIS services identify a number of important areas where WHOIS data is used such as supporting Internet's security and stability, determining availability of domain names, enforcing national and international laws, combating against abusive uses of ICTs, etc. All these recommendations are solid and also related to this PDP so they may help facilitate our work. *Article 29 WP on ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law (2007)* This letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/schaar-to-cerf-12mar07-en.pdf> stresses the importance of defining the purpose of registration data so that its processing and use complies with EU data and protection legislation. I think that ensuring such legal compliance should be always kept in mind when defining the purpose in our PDP so that registrars operating under EU legislation do not face legal issues when trying to meet the registrar accreditation agreements. Best regards, Maryan On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
It would be very much appreciated if the three of you could in just a few minutes each do this.
Chuck
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2016 12:51 AM *To:* Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Team outputs - Summaries
Hello Team,
Thank you to Susan Prosser, Tjabbe Bos and Maryan Rizinski for providing their input on the most important documents and rationale. Would you each be able to discuss on the call your rationale for choosing these documents? I apologize for the late email but it would be helpful for the discussion on the call.
Best,
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
*From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maryan Rizinski <rizinski@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 4:26 PM *To: *"Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org" <Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Team outputs - Summaries
Dear Susan, all,
I would list the following inputs as most helpful:
- WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report (2012) - SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant (September 2012) - EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS - GAC Communiqués regarding WHOIS (2007-2015) - Article 29 WP on ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law (2007)
As Tjabbe mentioned, some of these documents are both useful and exhaustive and, in my opinion, represent a comprehensive basis for the upcoming discussions in our PDP.
Best regards,
Maryan
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> wrote:
During the 20 April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week?s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question:
*Which top 5 inputs summarized by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why?*
For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan?
The following are personal choices and I am using these as an example of what we need to discuss BUT each sub team member needs to provide their input.
*WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_final-2Dreport-2D11may12-2Den.pdf&d=CwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Um9LPy5NeJc0bzCRJXJITjs11VDc-mPUdDoFstMAfSI&s=VkyWGJjGiXmWNxpwUxeBKAS7iluf0v5EEQQnRemjBvw&e=>* (2012)*
*SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_sac-2D055-2Den.pdf&d=CwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Um9LPy5NeJc0bzCRJXJITjs11VDc-mPUdDoFstMAfSI&s=W7YSspCkpy5re5rGjKsDrQtEeL5QifCIccbYUXhVjvw&e=>* (September 2012)*
*EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_final-2Dreport-2D06jun14-2Den.pdf&d=CwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Um9LPy5NeJc0bzCRJXJITjs11VDc-mPUdDoFstMAfSI&s=hsKNTrSyaOx2rCNW8v0soyWoGWx02ai3ReWjkVNRh-E&e=>*, especially*
- *Section 3, Users and Purposes*
- *Annex C, Example Use Cases*
*Annex A, Board Questions*
*Registrar Accreditation Agreement* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_approved-2Dwith-2Dspecs-2D2013-2D09-2D17-2Den&d=CwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Um9LPy5NeJc0bzCRJXJITjs11VDc-mPUdDoFstMAfSI&s=f3-kXKEPuHSQG2EX57lQ-kjvxJii8LP6aUmKAuoOxaI&e=>* (2013)*
Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org < Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>
Looking forward to a lively discussion.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
Sorry for jumping in late, but here's one more summary that I believe is relevant to the analysis of purpose: DESCRIPTION OF 2013 RAA DATA RETENTION SPECIFICATION DATA ELEMENTS AND POTENTIALLY LEGITIMATE PURPOSES FOR COLLECTION/RETENTION DISCUSSION DRAFT ONLY 21 March 2014 This document goes through the data elements required in each section of the 2013 RAA DATA RETENTION SPECIFICATION (Sections 1.1.1 - 1.2.3) and provides potentially legitimate purposes for collection/retention of such data. In most cases, where the data is for Registrar use, legitimate purposes provided are: administration of contracts with registrant, billing, billing disputes, chargebacks, fraud prevention, to address hijacking, theft, slamming and to facilitate resolution of transfer disputes in accordance with the TDRP. Where the data is to be made public (i.e., WHOIS), legitimate purposes provided are: to address hijacking, theft, slamming and to facilitate resolution of transfer disputes in accordance with the TDRP, abuse mitigation, facilitating domain name purchases and sales. This document concludes by noting that, although law enforcement and IP concerns may not be recognized per se as legitimate purposes under the laws of some EU Member States, even law enforcement officials from various EU Member States (as well as Interpol) were strong advocates of collection and retention of data outlined in the DATA RETENTION SPECIFICATION. So, despite the differing views that may exists between privacy advocates from some government agencies and law enforcement and proprietary rights advocates from other agencies (all in the same jurisdiction), if data is retained for legitimate purposes, law enforcement's ability to access such data will likely be determined under applicable local law, e.g., pursuant to a valid subpoena or court order. Thanks, Fab Fabricio Vayra | Perkins Coie LLP PARTNER 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005-3960 D. +1.202.654.6255 F. +1.202.654.9678 E. FVayra@perkinscoie.com<mailto:FVayra@perkinscoie.com> [cid:image001.jpg@01D054C5.01001EE0] From: gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 6:40 AM To: Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Team outputs - Summaries During the 20 April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week?s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question: Which top 5 inputs summarized by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why? For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan? The following are personal choices and I am using these as an example of what we need to discuss BUT each sub team member needs to provide their input. WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> (2012) SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> (September 2012) EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>, especially 1. Section 3, Users and Purposes 2. Annex C, Example Use Cases Annex A, Board Questions Registrar Accreditation Agreement<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> (2013) Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:discussion.Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> <Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> Looking forward to a lively discussion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. ________________________________ NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
participants (7)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Maryan Rizinski -
Prosser, Susan -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi -
Tjabbe.BOS＠ec.europa.eu -
Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie)