RE: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming

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

So Marilyn you can confirm that this is AT&T official position?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:39 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage; ross@tucows.com
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; Tony Holmes (E-mail); Mark McFadden (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming
>
>
> 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
>

--
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