RE: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@att.com>]

It is important to clear up misunderstanding about ENUM which seem to be buried in this communication.

There is  no inherent privacy risk to ENUM in and of itself. Each country will be creating an "instantiation" of 
ENUM. Each country therefore has the ability to address privacy and security in its implementation of ENUM. To my knowledge, 
each country undertaking a trial, or an implementation has considered privacy of the individual. Not all ENUM users are individuals. That has to be kept in mind. Huge numbers of potential ENUM users are institutional users.

There may be an ENUM briefing at the Rio meeting. 

Rather than speculating on how ENUM is being undertaken in the various country trials, it would behoove
all to attend this session and "learn more", if they are not already involved and informed.  

Simply speculating seems to the "ICANN way". I strongly recommend  learning more. 

To simply assume that ENUM is a "revenue opportunity" to registries or registrars is a simple approach to a more complex "question".

I would assume that any interested party has sought already to learn how their country is instantiating ENUM and has worked within that process for participation. And any interested party will have done the responsible exploration of the realities of revenue generation opportunities -- again, these are not ICANN issues. 

Some ccTLDs may be interested in  and seeking to be the ENUM "Tier 1", or to provide some other level of service.
Some "g" registries or registrars may be interested in bidding to be the country Tier 1 for their country. IF that is the approach taken by the country. ENUM is not within the scope of ICANN, but is one of those applications with implications for the DNS, so is within ICANN's responsibility to provide information and awareness about...

There are implications for ENUM in data accuracy in the DNS.  Inaccurate data will return...what is that old computer adage: garbage in/garbage out?  So, inaccuracies will beget inaccuracies... 

Okay, enough "teasers".  I suggest that all interested parties  plan to attend the ENUM informational briefing at Rio if it materializes. Otherwise, many countries have web sites with information about their country trials. 

BUT, again, let's demystify this. ENUM is an application, outside of ICANN, which "uses" the DNS. But it is a convergence technology. There are many places to learn about ENUM, depending on the country one is located in and providing services in.....A strong potential linkage exists between VoIP [Internet over Internet Protocol] and ENUM. Clearly, there is NO role for ICANN in VoIP. 

We all need to be careful not to "smush" [technical term] too many things together. At the same time, "awareness/informational" sessions, such as one on ENUM, are both informative and valuable, to ICANN's stakeholders. 




-----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

--
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