RE: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I am a little confused at your verbal jab at the FTC.

Mike - there was no "jab" at the FTC - simply a recognition that if
there was a "public/private sector partnership" as you called it, I
don't feel like I am part of it and I doubt that there are many other
private interests that do.

To recap here's what has been asked of us as part of this "partnership"
thus far;

2000 FBI/DOJ Meeting: Better access to whois would make things easier
for us.
FTC Meeting Last Fall: We need unfettered access to your whois database
for a bunch of reasons that we can't specifically tell you about - and
PS, the data that is in there is pretty inaccurate.
FTC Meeting Last Week: We still need  unfettered access to your whois
database.

Not much more than lip-service to the P word.

Second, I reiterate that the world is much larger world beyond the EU
and America. Our solutions need to recognize this. Rather than dealing
with the substance of this claim, you've noted that there are a lot of
Europeans and Americans working to solve problems without involving me
but that somehow ENUM is going to make it a lot worse unless we elect
Henning. Not sure that I get the logic.

Lastly, I've never said that data privacy was absolute - just that it
was primary. Big difference. You're proposal assumes that there is arich
dataset that needs to be carved up and handed to law enforcement, IP
attorneys and a slew of others. I propose that we examine the attributes
of that dataset first, in a local context, and then worry about
providing mechanisms for accessing it to appropriate parties in
appropriate circumstances.

Handing the keys to government and telco interests doesn't seem to make
a lot of sense in this context.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:36 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> I am a little confused at your verbal jab at the FTC. After 
> the first FTC meeting with registration authorities last 
> Fall, I stressed the need for them to work within a global 
> framework not just a US centric view of the world. Any you 
> know what happened? There was a follow-up meeting at the 
> Department of Commerce, where there were representatives from 
> the DoC (including the US GAC representative), the European 
> Union, and the FTC. This meeting served as another stepping 
> stone of people trying to work together to solve common problems.
> 
> After this meeting there was the recent cross boarder 
> workshop where representatives from around the world, both 
> public and private sector got together in another attempt to 
> move the ball forward. Similarly, registrars have been 
> working to establish open lines of communication with law 
> enforcement since the outset of competition in this space. 
> Remember our meeting with the Department of Justice and the 
> FBI to address domain name hijacking in 2000. One of the 
> reasons that I traveled to Germany a couple of weeks ago to 
> attend the DENic ICANN workshop was to gain a better 
> appreciation of the conflicting interests between data 
> protection laws from around the globe.
> 
> In my humble opinion one of the biggest driving forces 
> pushing Whois reform is ENUM, please refer to the recent 
> postings on ICANNWatch. This is why I have pushed for Henning 
> Grote from Deutshe Telekom to be the registrar constituency 
> delegate to the ICANN Nominating Committee. Henning has been 
> one of the individuals that has raised my awareness of 
> European data privacy protection. Moreover, DT is beginning 
> to roll out ENUM applications this year. His knowledge on the 
> convergence of this technology and the surrounding policy 
> issues make him a potentially valuable asset to the 
> nominating committee. Moreover, ENUM represents potential new 
> revenue opportunities for registrars which is also another positive.
> 
> I am glad that TUCOWS is stepping forward to advocate 
> increased privacy. But you miss the point that privacy is 
> directly related to access. As we heard last week, data 
> privacy is NOT ABSOLUTE. If you spend the time to read the 
> European Commission  Directives you will see that there are 
> limitations. Thus privacy is directly related to access. 
> Specifically, who has access to the data and at what levels.
> 
> I look forward to continued constructive dialogue on this 
> issue in the future.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ross 
> > Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:57 AM
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming
> >
> >
> > > of the GAC to assist in resolving some of these complex issues 
> > > involving the accuracy and access of Whois information.
> >
> > This isn't about accuracy and access, but privacy. Lets not 
> lose sight 
> > of that - or the reason why we need to consult with the GAC in the 
> > first place - reaching out to individual agencies is neither 
> > practical, nor within our mandate.
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > I do? I thought I was pretty clear in stating that we needed a 
> > mechanism to respect local policy at an international level - not a 
> > mechanism to rationalize local policy on a registrar by 
> registrar or 
> > registry by registry or worse, [insert infinite number of 
> combinations 
> > here] basis.
> >
> > > test, and the ability to demonstrate that the new private-public 
> > > sector framework can work.
> >
> > I'm not sure that there is one. I have heard your colleagues at the 
> > FTC use this phrase more than once, but I don't really feel that we 
> > are part of a partnership.
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the 
> shore like an 
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
> >
> > --
> > 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