Hi all Kathy pointed out that this message got truncated in transmission, so here's another version. Emily Begin forwarded message:
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk> Date: 2 February 2011 15:14:58 GMT To: "rt4-whois@icann.org WHOIS" <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Agenda and summary of comments - Our Call Today
Dear All
On 29 January, I sent around a suggested agenda for today's call, which was essentially to hear from the sub-groups dealing with definitional work, and also catch up from the Policy and Implementation subgroups.
Alice circulated meeting notes from our London meeting on 31 January, which are attached.
I would also like to recap on the arrangements for our Face to Face meeting in September.
Therefore, my proposed agenda today is:
------------------ Agenda
1. Roll call and apologies
2. Adoption of agenda
3. London meeting notes, comments and adoption
4. Information - September meeting
5. Report from subgroups (C,D,E,F):
- Current Status
- Outline of proposed content for public comment period
- Questions for ICANN staff
- Research and support items required.
6. Progress report - Policy and Implementation subgroups (A & B).
7. AOB
Kind regards
Emily
Here is a copy of what I have received so far from the subgroups:
--------------------
Law Enforcement
an organization or the activity of an organization all of which are authorized by a nationally or internationally recognized government to maintain, co-ordinate, and enforce laws, regulations, or multi-national treaty obligations within the internationally recognized authorized boundaries of that nationally or internationally recognized government
[awaiting comments from Lutz]
---------------------
Applicable Laws
An agreed understanding for the purpose of WHOIS review: national laws related to personal data protection and data privacy, implementing internationally recognized legal norms such as the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N.Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files.
Comment from Peter Nettlefold:
My comment on this is that we could consider, particularly at this stage of the review, keeping our definitions or understandings of terms as broad as possible. This is partly because I think that it may be better to have some overlap in our definitions by keeping them broad, rather than risk missing something by having them too narrow.
In the case of ‘applicable laws’, my suggestion is to keep our definition open so that it can potentially include any relevant/applicable laws. Privacy laws will obviously be a key part of this, but there may be other laws that we haven’t yet identified.
As we discussed in London, I think this issue is common to each of our definitional questions. For example, privacy issues should also be raised in the ‘consumer trust’ area, and I’ve put forward some comments to that sub-group to that effect
------------------
Producers and Maintainers
RT4 Members: I can report that I have met with our in-house Legal folks to research the following questions. It is not likely that we will have a final response in time for our Wednesday call, but I should have something back to this group by Friday at the latest. Please review the questions and let me know if you spot any omissions or errors.
1. Who "owns" the WHOIS data? * RAA Section 3.5 ("Rights in Data") * RAA Section 3.6 ("Data Escrow") and Registrar Data Escrow (RDE) Specifications (http://www.icann.org/en/rde/rde-specs-09nov07.pdf )
2. Where do Registrar obligations under current WHOIS policy reside? * RAA * Consensus Policy * RRA (Registry / Registrar Agreement) * WHOIS Protocol (RFC 3912) * Local law * Others?
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk