Re: [council] Regarding data collected and the purpose of collecting data

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Philip,

--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Bruce, Ross, Mawaki, Robin, fellow Councillors,
> thank you for your responses to the proposed compromise wording.
>>>snip>>> 
> The footnote to the compromise definition did state "Note: This
> definition is explicitly
> silent on questions of subsequent access to data or data
> publication".
> In other words, the assumption in the compromise formulation is to
> separate the issues of
> "purpose of data" and "access".

And I heard you, and asked when replying to your proposal of the
redefined F#2, quote:
> 3. The definition is silent on questions of subsequent access to
> data or data publication.
If I understand well, are you saying that your proposed definition of
the purpose for which the data is collected does not imply that the
WHOIS data must remain publicly accessible? 
Unquote.

But not surprisingly, I haven't gotten any answer from you. It turns
out to be that, whether you like it or not, the objective of this
policy development and TF is to address the issue of the WHOIS data
being made public, as any one can clearly see from the three points
of the ToR recalled by Ross:

1. Figure out if the current data being published is appropriate 
(whether it should be broadened or narrowed)
2. Figure out if all of this data should be made public.
3. Specify how data that is not being made public can be accessed.

Even if you ONLY take the first one as you're doing to say you agree
on it, the sub-question in brackets ("whether it should be broadened
or narrowed"), which is the continuation of the main question,
indicates that it is about figuring out how much data needs to be
_public_, and how much needs not.

And Bruce also clarified this earlier, as the "heart of the issue"
stated in Terms of reference no. 3:

"Determine what data collected should be available for public access
in the context of the purpose of WHOIS. Determine how to access data
that is not available for public access."

And I seem to understand, when he writes: "we need to move forward
[my addition: after the vote] to focus on a solution," he's referring
to the second sentence in the quote right above.

So, last questions for you Philip:

1. Do you think the question of determining whether the WHOIS data
must be publicly available or not (as your refined proposal remains
silent on this, while it was the job of the TF to find out), so do
you think it is a question the GNSO Council should not bother asking?

2. Do you think it ICANN's _mission_ to cater for law enforcement,
just because there might be unlawful deeds over the Net?

3. Don't you think the law provides, or can provide, enough itself
with the means of its own enforcement, so that it doesn't need ICANN
to take on the mission of a surrogate for law enforcement?

Talk to you tomorrow,

Mawaki




> One side seems to say:
> Registrar agreement is a given truth - now lets define purpose then
> discuss other issues.
> The other side is saying:
> Define purpose - discuss access - discuss other issues - implement
> in Registrar agreement as
> required.
> 
> I suspect this lies at the root of the dissonance on both the TF
> and now Council.
> It is a key dissonance to overcome.
> 
> A vote on Wednesday will not be a solution. Without resolving the
> above it will be a hollow
> victory for either side.
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>