ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow2tf] Whois tf 2: revised Draft section 2.4

  • To: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "Kathryn Kleiman" <KathrynKL@xxxxxxx>, "GNSO Secretariat" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Whois tf 2: revised Draft section 2.4
  • From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:56:58 -0400
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcQ+4irs6zwecAKhQCyGb48stadfgQAWaFIQAJaWvYA=
  • Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Whois tf 2: revised Draft section 2.4

Kathy and I discussed this section as well over the weekend.  I believe
that we reached agreement on the following findings, and on including a
statement (as section 3.4 of the report) that no recommendations are
being made on the issue of collection of data elements at this time.
Kathy expressed her preference for the second option on the issue of the
verbiage leading up to the findings (see third paragraph of my messge
below); perhaps we can discuss this on the call later today. 
*        there was no consensus that the data elements now being
collected should be changed.  All of the data elements now collected are
considered by at least some constituencies to be necessary for current
and foreseeable needs of the community, though others dispute whether
such needs are consistent with the purpose of the Whois database and the
reasons for collection of sensitive/personal data by registrars; this;


*        there was no consensus about whether any of the current
elements should be made voluntary;


*        some additional data elements were proposed, but questions were
raised about whether some of these (e.g., date and method of last
verification of data) fell within the purview of TF3 rather than TF 2;


*        While some view the acquisition of this data as raising privacy
concerns,  there was no consensus on this point, and the Task Force
devoted more of its time and resources to discussing the issues raised
in Tasks/Milestones 3 and 4 (limiting data made available for public
access/existing and future options to maintain registrant anonymity).   


From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Steve Metalitz
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:26 AM
To: Kathryn Kleiman; GNSO Secretariat; dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Whois tf 2: Draft section 2.4 

Thanks Kathy.  I attach a revised version of my text which basically
accepts your changes to the bullets (I have re-named them findings
rather than conclusions, though I share your confusion about the
Your proposed recommendation I cannot support.  What country's law
dictates to ICANN what it must do if it decides (which it has not
decided) to "reevaluate and determine" "the purpose of the WHOIS
Regarding your four introductory paragraphs --- we have two options, it
seems to me.  We could provide links to the submissions and responses to
questionnaires, and to the constituency statements,
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/tf2-survey/ and
respectively, so that the reader could  explore for herself the basis
for our finding that there was no consensus.  This is what I have done
in the attached draft.  Alternatively, I could prepare a one-sided
summary of the submissions that called for preserving and/or expanding
the existing data elements, to supplement the one-sided summary of the
opposing view that you have drafted.  I think the first alternative is
more efficient but if you feel strongly about it I have no problem
pursuing the second alternative.  Please let us know what you think. 
In this regard, if the second alternative is chosen, I think the
reference to Buttarelli's presentation is out of place.  While the Rome
meeting agenda was saturated with public events relating to Whois, his
remarks were apparently made in a private meeting, or at least one that
was so poorly publicized that many people with a keen interest in the
topic were not aware of the session until after it had occurred.  In any
case this cannot accurately be described as "the ICANN community in Rome
heard calls."  Of course it would be appropriate to retain the excerpt
from the Art. 29 working party paper, if the second alternative way of
proceeding were chosen.   


From: KathrynKL@xxxxxxx [mailto:KathrynKL@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:18 PM
To: Steve Metalitz; GNSO Secretariat; dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Whois tf 2: Draft section 2.4 

Attached please find some edits to Steve's section on collection of data
In my review of materials, I found a considerable discussion of
collection of data submitted in constituency statements, our data
gathering phase, and also the government submission that Team 1 was
tasked to review.   It seems appropriate to add it.

Also, I am a bit confused about conclusions vs. findings vs.
recommendations, so I rearranged things a bit in keeping with our other

Word doc attached.  Hope AOL lets it come through nicely,

	TF2 participants,
	With apologies for tardiness here is a draft of section 2.4 of
	findings (re:  collection of data) in text form and attached as
a Word
	Steve Metalitz

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