<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming
Jeff and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
Yes this reference was discussed and much disagreed with in the
IETF ENUM wg of late see: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/
Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> You may also want to read this:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shockey-enum-privacy-security-00.t
> xt
>
> The author is an employee of NeuStar, but independent of that, he has been a
> recognized expert in this area for many years.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:18 AM
> To: 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 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
>
> 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
> --
> 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
>>>
|