[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Next possible move related to GDPR

Tijani BEN JEMAA tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
Tue Sep 4 07:01:04 UTC 2018

My dear friends,

Speaking about percentage (98% - 2%) and (0;000000) is to say that At-Large must take a position for a part (called majority) against the other part (called minority). My take is absolutely different.
Our duty is to defend the public interest, means security of the end users and the best conditions for their utilisation of Internet.
Our position should be to ensure:
the protection of end-users from harmful use of DNS
the protection of their data from harmful usage. 

This can be reached through:
the collection of the necessary data (not more than the necessary) for the registration and for any necessary protection of the DNS from the criminals
Access to the non public data when necessary by third party with legitimate purpose.

I find there is an exaggeration of the risk that is frightening some of our members pushing towards a non balanced position.
For the record, the CEO of AFNIC (dot fr registry) announced in the Africa Internet Summit 2018 that AFRIC is not publishing the registrant data since a while, and that they give access only on request, and yet, we didn’t hear of any problem with the dot fr domains so far.

So, again, we don’t have to be extremist for any side. We should have a balanced position (thank you Greg) supporting the data collection and access as necessary to prevent criminals from harming the end users.

Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
            +216 52 385 114

> Le 3 sept. 2018 à 20:37, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a écrit :
> Evan, that is fine for a report, but it is less clear what that means for participation in a process such as the edpd.
> Let us hypothesize that there are 4 billion users and 2% of them are gTLD registrants (80,000,000). Does that mean that Hadia and I should push strongly for law enforcement and cybersecurity professionals to have good access most of the time, but for 2% of the time we strongly support those who want to minimize their access because they do not believe that there is sufficient justification to infringe on registrant privacy (ie the "privacy fetishists  ;-) )?
> That will not give us much credibility!
> Remember, it is not a case of nit providing privacy for those who are granted those rights under GDPR or similar legislation. That is a given!
> Alan
> At 03/09/2018 01:35 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> In previous policy activity (IIRC it was with the Red Cross / IOC CCWG) the
>> group I was in had similar challenges. So in the final report issues and
>> positions were broken down this way:
>> 1) Consensus (rough rather than unanimity)
>> 2) Strong support but significant opposition
>> 3) Minority position
>> 4) Divergence without clear direction
>> It's not unreasonable to do this, recognizing both majority and minority
>> views. It might help to also readers to identify if opposition or minority
>> views are held by identifiable subgroups (ie, members of At-Large who are
>> also registrants or associated with contracted parties, or from a
>> particular geographical region).
>> Consensus is great, but if unavailable ought not to be replaced with
>> tyranny of the majority. We owe our community the honesty to recognize
>> diversity, not just in the makeup of our leadership but also in the makeup
>> of our positions.
>> PS: I want to thank Greg for adding the phrase "privacy fetishists" to my
>> ICANN lexicon. It's a more useful phrase than it should be.
>> ___________________
>> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
>> @evanleibovitch/@el56
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20180904/b8a1b01a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org

More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list