<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Alan, I hope you can try to seriously engage with the discussion and not make really bad arguments like this. It is an open ended negation of all applicable law
because people have different interpretations of it. So that means that our criteria for access can’t ever mention legal basis, even though this is defined in the GDPR? There are judges to resolved “multiple competing” views of law. This is not a serious argument.
Can you try to do better? Make it clearer what your concerns are? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:01 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Section 4.4.8<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Amr, my point was the uses the expression "legal bases" which can have multiple competing definitions and that is not a good basis (pun intended) for agreement.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On September 13, 2018 7:44:47 AM EDT, Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja">aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Alan,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The intention here was to state a principle on which further work down the road may be developed when we eventually get to deliberation on an access model. The principle is meant to provide guidance on a set of specific circumstances, that
if met, should allow specific portions of non-public gTLD Registration Data to be shared with specific third-parties, to address specific issues. The objective is to allow this while maintaining compliance with GDPR, or possibly other privacy laws/regulations.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is not to say that a third-party requires the kind of legal rights or mandate I believe you are describing, as in your comparison between LEAs and independent cybersecurity workers. So yes, ICANN’s Mission does come into play here.
In fact, I believe it to be a key factor of consideration. At some point, we’re going to have to deliberate on how that Mission does or does not allow third-parties access non-public Registration Data.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope this was helpful.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Amr<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sep 13, 2018, at 4:55 AM, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am generally in support of this, but I question the term "grounded in legal bases". It this the legal basis in reference to GDPR (ie that there needs to be a legitimate demonstrable need to access otherwise private information). Or a
legal basis as in reference to law enforcement having a right to demand certain information.
<br>
<br>
I can accept the former (if it is made clear), but not the latter. ICANN's Mission-defined interest in ensuring that security and stability of the DNS (and by implication, the trusted nature of the DNS) may create a need for cybersecurity workers to have access
to certain data, but there is no LAW that gives them that right.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 11/09/2018 04:33 PM, Alex Deacon wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi All,<br>
<br>
As you know a group of us has been working to recommend an update to Section 4.4.8 of the temp spec.
<br>
<br>
While we haven't come to full agreement on the update, we are pretty close and wanted to share the current/tentative output of the volunteer team with the broader team.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:blue">4.4.8 Supporting a framework that enables identification of third-parties with legitimate interests grounded in legal bases, and providing these third-parties with access to Registration Data relevant to addressing specific issues
involving domain name registrations related to consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime, DNS abuse and intellectual property protection.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"><br>
</span>The non-bold text was suggested by Amr/NCSG and the added bold text was an updated suggested by me/IPC and supported by the BC.
<br>
<br>
Giving it a re-read again today I think additional word-smithing could be warranted, but for now I will resist and step away and let others share their thoughts.
<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
<span style="color:blue"><br>
</span><br>
-- <br>
___________<br>
Alex Deacon<br>
Cole Valley Consulting<br>
<a href="mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com">alex@colevalleyconsulting.com</a><br>
+1.415.488.6009<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org">Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>