[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting

Tue Jan 16 04:38:02 UTC 2018

I apologize for not voting in the recent poll.  If I had, I would have
voted the same way as Gregory Mounier did, with essentially the same
underlying thoughts.  I note Nathalie's suggestion, but I agree with John
that we haven't even reached that point yet -- we first need to decide
whether the purpose is legitimate or not , and then (if it is legitimate)
whether it is primary or secondary.

There is a fundamental concept that I think is getting lost here --
RDS/Whois does not exist to serve the registrar/registrant relationship, it
(they?) exists to serve the needs of the DNS ecosystem, which by definition
includes law enforcement, anti-abuse, and anti-IP-infringement activity, as
well as actual and potential transferees.  The RDS should be viewed as a
fundamental part of the system and processes that keep the DNS working (not
just technically, but in terms of security, trust, and the free movement of
domain names).

Greg

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:02 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> If its not a legitimate purpose, then its not a secondary purpose either.
> The language of the purposed agreement makes no accommodation for such a
> compromise even IF it were acceptable and its not.
>
> --
> John Bambenek
>
> On Jan 15, 2018, at 15:38, nathalie coupet via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Gregory,
>
> I was expecting this objection be raised by law enforcement. But, in a
> spirit of compromise, let's remember a resolution a member made earlier
> about the implementation of GDPR: we were going to distinguish between
> primary purpose and secondary purpose (those not directly based on the
> contract between the registrant and the registrar) and beef up 'secondary
> purposes'. While this might seem unnatural, it allows us to apply the
> GDPR's distinction while preserving the use of WHOIS for law enforcement
> and abuse mitigation people.
> This is important when submitting the WG's and ultimately ICANN's
> rationale to the DPA's review: let's not increase the attack surface. We
> can make sure that despite this use not being granted full legitimate
> status for collection, there will be enough data available for this use by
> allowing additional collection, if need be.
> The fact that a purpose is direct or indirect based on the contract
> between the reigstrant and the registrar - the initial consent of the
> registrant being the cirteria for determining which purpose is primary
> (a.k.a 'legitimate') and which one is not (i.e 'secondary') - could really
> alleviate our quest for a compromise and still protect ICANN and
> registrars.
> I fear we'll still be here discussing this until we all turn blue and
> still not get anywhere. I'm sure no one in the group believes your work is
> less important, and we'll protect your access to information as much as we
> can.
> We just need to create this little artifice to protect registrars and
> ICANN, so DPA's wont breathe down our necks.
>
> Why not give it a try?
>
> Nathalie
>
>
> On Monday, January 15, 2018 8:30 AM, "Mounier, Grégory" <
> gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I will not be able to join the call tomorrow so I thought that I should
> drop an email to the list to explain why I voted against the proposed
> possible WG Agreement according to which “*Criminal Activity/DNS Abuse –
> Investigation is NOT a legitimate purpose for requiring collection of
> registration data, but maybe a legitimate purpose of using some data
> collected for other purposes*.”
> I think that there are a number of rationales/grounds - including in
> ICANN’s Bylaws - to argue that in fact, investigating criminal activity and
> DNS Abuse *IS* a legitimate purpose for requiring the collection of
> registration data.
> Some of these rationales have been mentioned during the discussion on the
> mailing list and during the call on 9th January. Unfortunately, I think
> that the proposed possible WG agreement does not take into consideration
> these rationales. I specifically disagree with the assumption that we
> should make a distinction between 1) the purpose of collecting the data and
> 2) the purpose for using the data collected for other purposes (manage
> domain registrations).
> The reason why I disagree with making this distinction is that it leads to
> artificially reduce the importance of a valid and legitimate purpose of the
> WHOIS system, acknowledged by ICANN Bylaws: addressing malicious abuse of
> the DNS and providing a framework to address appropriate law enforcement
> needs. (ICANN’s mandate is to “ensure the stable and secure operation of
> the internet’s unique identifier systems”[1]
> <https://mail.yahoo.com/?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma#_ftn1> + WHOIS data is
> essential for “the legitimate needs of law enforcement” and for “promoting
> consumer trust.”[2]
> <https://mail.yahoo.com/?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma#_ftn2> ). In its
> document on the three compliance models issued last Friday[3]
> <https://mail.yahoo.com/?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma#_ftn3>, ICANN has
> explicitly included: addressing the needs of law enforcement, investigation
> of cybercrime and DNS abuse as legitimate purposes of the WHOIS system.
> If one of the purpose of the WHOIS system is to support a framework to
> address issues involving domain name registrations, including investigation
> of cybercrime and DNS abuse, it can be argued that investigating criminal
> activity and DNS abuse IS a legitimate purpose for requiring the collection
> of registration data. Likewise, I think that requiring collection of
> registration data to prevent crime is NOT beyond ICANN's mandate because
> this data is essential for ICANN to fulfil its mandate.
> I have attached a list of relevant references supporting this point of
> view taken from ICANN’s Bylaws and the GDPR.
>
> I hope that you’ll find this contribution helpful and I’m looking forward
> to reading the transcript of the next call J.
>
> Best,
> Greg
>
> Gregory Mounier
> Europol
> European Cybercrime Centre
> +31 6 55782743 <+31%206%2055782743>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Chuck
> *Sent:* 12 January 2018 15:21
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9
> January Meeting
> *Importance:* High
>
> The response to this week’s poll is particularly low so I strongly
> encourage more members to respond so that we have enough data to help us in
> our meeting next week.  Thanks to those who have already responded.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:27 AM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9
> January Meeting
>
> Dear all,
>
> In follow-up to this week’s WG meeting, *all RDS PDP WG Members* are
> encouraged to participate in the following poll:
>
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VM6S8YK
>
> Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline
> reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:
>
>               https://community.icann.org/download/
> attachments/74580034/Poll-from-9January-Call.pdf?
> version=1&modificationDate=1515544361000&api=v2
>
> *This poll will close at COB Saturday 13 January. *
>
> Please note that you *must be a WG Member* to participate in polls. If
> you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first
> contact gnso-secs at icann.org to upgrade to WG Member.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> *Marika Konings*
> *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
> *Email: **marika.konings at icann.org* <marika.konings at icann.org>
>
> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our **interactive courses*
> <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>* and visiting the **GNSO Newcomer
> pages*
> <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>
> *. *
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [1] <https://mail.yahoo.com/?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma#_ftnref1> ICANN
> Bylaws Article One, Section 1.1, Mission.
> [2] <https://mail.yahoo.com/?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma#_ftnref2> ICANN
> Bylaws, Registration Directory Services Review, §4.6(e).
> [3] <https://mail.yahoo.com/?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma#_ftnref3>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-
> models-gdpr-compliance-12jan18-en.pdf
> *******************
>
> DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for
> the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not
> use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents
> or rely upon the information contained in it.
> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant
> e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by
> Europol unless otherwise indicated.
>
> *******************
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180115/f1a2ffab/attachment-0001.html>