[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jun 8 09:32:52 UTC 2017
"ICANN has no power independent of the agreement of everyone
to use the ICANN policies for the IANA DNS root. Ask MySpace or the
authors of Gopher whether there are any permanent favourites on the
Internet."
Actually, ICANN has a monopoly over who is an accredited registrar for
the gTLDs. With respect to the contracts between registries and
registrars, I would argue that the community has historically had very
little opportunity to influence those contracts, with the exception of
the IPC who got their requirements in to the DOC prior to the
establishment of ICANN. At the moment we are expending a great deal of
our valuable time designing the public interface that contains the data
we deem acceptable to share. Inherent in the concept of tiered access,
which some ccTLDS already employ, and which the DPAs have already said
(in documents in our repository which clearly some of us need to reread)
is the concept of discrimination....you need to identify who you are and
why you want the data to get more access, possibly untraced access (to
enable investigations etc) and bulk data. I do understand that there is
no "centre" there, but I certainly think that ICANN has influence over
who gets access to the next tier of data. Let me repeat for greater
clarity: I am not talking about thin data.
I have taken the time to plough through the Interpol data protection
handbook. Some may recall that Caroline Goemans, the Data Protection
Officer for Interpol came to Copenhagen. I hesitate to even mention
their handbook because folks will choose to believe that I want the
Interpol rules for data sharing to apply to those tireless fighters who
report abuse, across the globe...so let me immediately say relax, I am
not suggesting this. However, a mini version of how trusted parties
share data needs, in my view, to be developed. I was just accused of
suggesting something that is "impractical in the developed world, and
deeply chauvinistic, patronizing and exclusionary to our colleagues in
emerging nations where capacity building is exactly what’s needed to
deal with next-gen abuse." Frankly, it should be admissible to suggest
that we need a system that is slightly more organized and less open to
anti-competitive behaviour than the club-of-folks-who-know-each-other
under which we are operating now. It is precisely because we are global
and a lot of the criminal behaviour emanates from countries where nobody
has any mlats or has signed and implemented the Budapest Convention that
I would suggest we should think about some kind of accreditation for
access to data. Otherwise, registrars who surrender personal data of
their registrants are likely in violation of more law than mere data
protection law. [for non-english speakers, the use of the word "mere"
was intended to be ironic"].
Cheers Stephanie
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list