ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[dow1tf]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow1tf] Sensitive v. Nonsensitive Data

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1tf] Sensitive v. Nonsensitive Data
  • From: "Jeremy Banks" <Jeremy.Banks@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:05:33 +0100
  • Sender: owner-dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcQ4mJXJv2JrF8GISqyT8YOfi5w7wwBIEgJw
  • Thread-topic: [dow1tf] Sensitive v. Nonsensitive Data

The IPC agrees with David's suggestion that the question of sensitive
vs. nonsensitive data should be deferred to Task Force 2. 

Task Force 2 is not tasked solely with looking at what data is collected
but to facilitate a "Review of data collected and displayed". 

In addition, the exercise of parsing data into sensitive and
nonsensitive categories explicitly falls outside of the scope of Task
Force 1, "The task force should not study the amount of data available
for public (anonymous) access for single queries. Any changes to the
data collected or made available will be the subject of a separate
policy development process."

Regards

Jeremy


-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 13 May 2004 04:16
To: 'dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [dow1tf] Sensitive v. Nonsensitive Data

David Fares has suggested in the last call that we consider deferring
the
question of sensitive vs. nonsensitive data to Task Force 2 and believed
that the work in TF 1 in this regard overlaps with that of TF2.

Milton has responded that "TF 2 is actually NOT about defining sensitive
and
non-sensitive per se, but about which data elements should be COLLECTED
and
which should not. TFI have discovered that their deliberations are
clarified
significantly, by separating, for purposes of discussion, which of the
existing data elements will be publicly displayed and which will not.
The
current report explains this well. The reason we MUST do it is because
it
makes no sense to talk about how port 43 or other datamining
restrictions
should be made unless we know what is publicly accessible. In general,
it
will greatly advance the work of the GNSO Council if the TFs all come in
with relatively consistent ideas about what constitutes sensitive and
non-sensitive data. If we don't, then the whole debate will have to be
had
once again at the Council level."
I think this is an important distinction that Milton has made, but I
want to
hear input from the rest of the group.
Please supply our comments via e-mail.  I will have the next version out
this weekend.

Thanks.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Director, Law & Policy 
NeuStar, Inc. 
Loudoun Tech Center 
46000 Center Oak Plaza 
Building X 
Sterling, VA 20166 
p: (571) 434-5772 
f: (571) 434-5735 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>