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

Wed Jan 17 16:31:46 UTC 2018

Paul

Opening up the RAA is not something that is currently being discussed.

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
From: Paul Keating <Paul at law.es>
Date: Wednesday 17 January 2018 at 16:26
To: Michele Neylon <michele at blacknight.com>, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com>, 'nathalie coupet' <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>, "'Mounier, Grégory'" <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Cc: RDS-Leaders-List <gnso-next-gen-rds-lead at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting

Chuck and Michele,

In several of my emails I have suggested that ICANN revise the ARA and the RAA to require the data collection required for security.  This would seem to be well within ICANN’s ambit/purpose and having it in the agreement – and passed down to the registrars to collect would remove the present issue – which is the fact that the data necessary for security/certification/investigation is not required to perform the agreement between the registrant and registrar.

Michele, have the registrars considered such a situation?

Paul Keating

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 11:14 AM
To: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com<mailto:consult at cgomes.com>>, 'nathalie coupet' <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com<mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>>, <'Mounier>, Grégory' <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu<mailto:gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Cc: RDS-Leaders-List <gnso-next-gen-rds-lead at icann.org<mailto:gnso-next-gen-rds-lead at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting

Chuck / Nathalie

Chuck is correct. Every registrar has their own set of terms and conditions. There is no standard agreement, as no two companies are identical.

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck <consult at cgomes.com<mailto:consult at cgomes.com>>
Date: Wednesday 17 January 2018 at 01:07
To: 'nathalie coupet' <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com<mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>>, "'Mounier, Grégory'" <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu<mailto:gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Cc: RDS-Leaders-List <gnso-next-gen-rds-lead at icann.org<mailto:gnso-next-gen-rds-lead at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting

Nathalie,

First of all, let me point out that contracts between registrars and registrant’s vary by registrar.  There is not a standard registrant contract.  The RAA contains certain requirements that registrar must include in the registrant contract, but I am not aware that it requires a ‘do no harm’ clause.  I have cc’d the leadership team and hope Michele will answer your question.

Chuck

From: nathalie coupet [mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:59 PM
To: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com<mailto:consult at cgomes.com>>; 'Mounier, Grégory' <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu<mailto:gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting

Chuck and All,

Is there a 'do no harm' clause in the contract between the registrar and the registrant? This could ease the way for including collection of data for LEA and IP protection as uses for uses compatible with domain management...

Nathalie

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 11:52 AM, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com<mailto:consult at cgomes.com>> wrote:

I don’t think this WG is a negotiation table or a debate forum.  PDPs are a clearly defined process that is neither of these.

Chuck

From: nathalie coupet [mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:50 AM
To: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com<mailto:consult at cgomes.com>>; 'Mounier, Grégory' <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu<mailto:gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting

Yes. As long as each seconday purpose is formulated in such a way as to protect vital interests on a case by case basis (law enforcement, research, IP, etc.) with additional authorization for collection, if some data is missing, etc.
I would need to research this subject much more in details, or as a collective endeavour (much better).

Is this WG a negotiation table or just a debate forum for competing interests?

Nathalie

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:35 AM, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com<mailto:consult at cgomes.com>> wrote:

Nathalie,

Do I understand you correctly that you are suggesting that a primary purpose is one that a registrant gives consent for access and secondary purposes would be all other purposes recommended by the WG for which no registrant consent for access is given?

I am asking this for clarification with the understanding that we will get to access later.

Chuck

From: nathalie coupet [mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:38 PM
To: Mounier, Grégory <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu<mailto:gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>>; 'Chuck' <consult at cgomes.com<mailto:consult at cgomes.com>>; 'gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:'gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>' <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting

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<mailto: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 ☺.

Best,
Greg

Gregory Mounier
Europol
European Cybercrime Centre
+31 6 55782743

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto: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<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:27 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20180117/6cce78b5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 172 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180117/6cce78b5/image001-0001.png>