[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Final version of the ALAC Advice regarding the EPDP

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Apr 15 15:48:27 UTC 2019


At 15/04/2019 02:19 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
>Thanks for this - while I personally cannot 
>support the ratification of the draft advice 
>with a ‘yes’, it does look a lot better than 
>earlier versions. For now my intention is to ‘abstain’.

That's fine.



>In terms of wording/grammar:
>
>- On page 2, 'At the time the report was issued, 
>there was also an outstanding question to the 
>EPDP legal counsel whether ICANN’s presence in 
>the EU imply that the GDPR apply ALL personal 
>data regardless of location’ (et; )
>
>I think it should be ‘implies’ instead of 
>‘imply’, ‘applies’ in stead of 
>‘apply’, and there needs to be a ’to’ after the ‘applies’.

Thanks. Fixed.



>- On page 3, with regard to the advice itself, 
>'The ALAC advises the Board to request that the 
>issue of legal/natural differentiation be 
>discussed during the EPDP Phase 2 explicitly 
>considering the competing needs of those using 
>the data for cyber-security and other legitimate purposes.'
>
> From the sentence it is not clear (to me) what the ‘competing’ refers to.

It is competing against the issues of cheap, 
easy, risk-free implelemtation for contracted 
parties. I have now added those words in the 
statement above about "balancing". Good catch.



>- On page 4, part of the concluding remarks, 
>'The ALAC believes that the issues being raised 
>here have not received sufficient full discussion’.
>
>‘Received sufficient full discussion’ sounds 
>strange to me. Maybe change into ‘The ALAC 
>believes that the issues being raised here have 
>not been sufficiently discussed’ ?

FULL is the critical word here. There HAS been 
lots of discussion, but not all of the issues 
entered into the outcome. When SSAC, for 
instance, raised the issue of considering the 
needs of those using data, it was discarded as an 
issue for access, but before we get to access, 
there needs to be a determination of what data 
needs to be redacted in the first place. Although 
there are increasing reports on the impact of the 
Temp Spec redaction, some were presented to the group but never discussed.



>Anyway, thanks again, and with regards
>Bastiaan

And thanks to you!

Alan




>***  Please note that this communication is 
>confidential, legally privileged, and subject to 
>a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer  ***
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Apr 2019, at 08:03, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >
> > The errors caught by Marita and Sebastien are 
> fixed in the attached version.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 14/04/2019 04:23 PM, Sebastien Bachollet wrote:
> >> And if you fix that you may withdraw one of the two issues (the word).
> >> SeB
> >>
> >> Envoyé de mon iPhone
> >>
> >> Le 14 avr. 2019 Ã  20:42, Alan Greenberg 
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Thanks for catching that. Will fix. Alan
> >>> --
> >>> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> >>>
> >>> On April 14, 2019 1:44:48 PM EDT, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> One of the items still says require...
> >>>
> >>> "The ALAC advises the Board require that 
> the issue of Thick WHOIS issue be discussed 
> during the EPDP Phase 2 in light of the new legal opinion.
> >>> Geographic Differentiation"
> >>>
> >>> Marita
> >>> On 4/14/2019 3:22 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Attached is the final version being voted on by the ALAC.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It is largely unchanged with the exception of "require"
> >>>> being changed
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> back t "request" and an explanatory paragraph at the end.
> >>>> This was
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> done after consultation to ensure that we were not perceived as not
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> understanding Board restrictions and to not give an "easy"
> >>>> way of
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> rejected the advice ("we don't have that power").
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> CPWG mailing list
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> CPWG at icann.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Working Group direct URL:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CPWG mailing list
> >>> CPWG at icann.org
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > 
> <Advice-DRAFT-v06-clean.pdf><Advice-DRAFT-v06-redline.pdf>_______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > _______________________________________________
> > registration-issues-wg mailing list
> > registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
>

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list