<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming - ENUM
Jeff and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
The ITU is hardly a definitive source for ENUM.
A few other soruces are as follows:
http://www.enum.org/
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/enum-charter.html
http://www.enum-forum.org/
http://www.ripe.net/enum/
http://www.enum.info/
http://www.epic.org/privacy/enum/ - A very good one here.
http://search.cpan.org/author/ZENIN/enum-1.016/enum.pm - Good technical
detailed info here.
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/enum-charter.html
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/ - IETF ENUM WG archive.
============
Marilyn's comments on a public forum are open to interpretation,
including interpretations other than your own. Given Nuestar/Nuelevels
history and many mistakes of late, and still ongoing, I am sure others
will take them on the value that they deserve or should be considered.
But I thank you for providing them as they were, shall we say,
"Interesting"? >;)
Therefore I think Michael asking a valid question regarding Marilyn's
comments/remarks/declarations was both a good thing and a necessary
thing for him or anyone else to do on such public enumeration's...
I am sorry that at least from your tone Jeff, that you found Michaels
question to be particularly offensive or have some other paranoid
meaning. But that is of your own creation varition, Jeff...
Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> Michael,
>
> All of this is still in development.
>
> No one is rolling out a public Enum service in the United States tomorrow.
> I suggest you have patience and provide constructive feedback into the
> process, rather than always assuming the worst with respect to any new
> service. You are absolutely correct in that there are a number of privacy
> concerns with respect to ENUM. However, you are absolutely incorrect if you
> are making the assumption that these problems have not been identified and
> are not on the minds of all interested in both providing and receiving this
> service.
>
> Marilyn is absolutely on target with her description of the ENUM activities
> to date in the US. I also suggest that if you are interested, you can learn
> more about ENUM activities around the world on the ITU's ENUM Page at:
> http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/enum/.
>
> Jeff
>
> P.S. My company is actively involved in the ENUM standards development as
> well as other aspects of the ENUM service. I, unfortunately, am on
> tangentially involved. If you have any questions, I would be happy to pass
> them on to those in our company who are more familiar with this service than
> myself.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:20 AM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
> Cc: Michael D. Palage; ross@tucows.com; ga@dnso.org; Tony Holmes
> (E-mail); Mark McFadden (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming
>
> And URL to the privacy policies in, say, the US would be....?
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|