RE: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Ross,

I am glad that you support my concept of using the GAC to assist in this
area. Please refer to my GA posting on 11/1/02 and last week's FTC meeting
in DC were I encouraged the use of the GAC to assist in resolving some of
these complex issues involving the accuracy and access of Whois information.

Although you talk about privacy being a universal issue, you miss the fact
that national laws have very different approaches toward protecting it,
please refer to the presentation that I posted to the GA list yesterday.
Although lawyers generally tend to complicate things, this is one area where
their expertise is needed as much as the techies that will have to implement
it.

I believe the Whois problem will be ICANN 2.0's first big test, and the
ability to demonstrate that the new private-public sector framework can
work.  I have my fingers crossed.

Best regards,

Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
> Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:35 AM
> To: Thomas Roessler
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming
>
>
> Thomas,
>
> Thanks for your offer to accept further thoughts about whois data privacy
> for your brainstorming session.
>
> Some observations and a proposal.
>
> Registrant privacy is a right that we must start to take more seriously.
> Also note that this is not simply a European or American issue. There are
> hundreds of privacy jurisdictions that we would need to consider and
> rationalize if we take some of the approaches that have been put forward
> recently.
>
> Rather, let me propose instead that we examine policy and technical
> mechanisms that will allow for local policy to track up through the
> international system. It has been done elsewhere and it can be done here.
> Further, there is no reason to delay in this discovery[1]. These
> will not be
> trivial variables to solve for - we should start immediately.
>
> Lastly, lets not forget that the GAC is part of ICANN. Rather than drawing
> in "this agency" or "that commission", which will only result in us being
> distracted by the various local agenda, lets reach-out to our GAC
> colleagues
> and let them tell us where we need to pay special attention and
> what care we
> need to take to respect their local laws. This isn't so much about
> compromise as it is about cooperation and building consensus on solutions
> that will benefit the community over the long-term. Attempting to craft
> policy based on the immediate political objectives of any of the factions
> will not get us where we need to be.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>                      -rwr
>
>
> [1] I can forward you some further thoughts on the specific
> mechanisms, but
> I think its more important at this point to identify who has requirements
> and what they are rather than trying to design a specific mechanism that
> *might* hit the mark. Who has requirements you say? Lets start with
> Registrants, Intermediates (registrars/resellers), Registries and lastly,
> data users/consumers.
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org
>
> "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
> thought which they seldom use."
>  - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html