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

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Tue Sep 4 21:53:20 UTC 2018


Thanks Jonathan

Yes, true.  But if we are to make an argument that those who are NOT ‘law enforcement’ should have access, then we have to say why.  Under the GDPR, it simply is not good enough to say that I should have access because I hunt down the bad guys.  If we are clear that we must operate within GDPR bounds, then there has to be  reason why an individual who isn’t in uniform should have access.

Holly
On 5 Sep 2018, at 7:18 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

> Thanks Holly. I appreciate you have a nuanced view but the term “law enforcement” gets used pretty specifically to exclude commercial interests so I just wanted to be clear.
>  
> From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net> 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:01 PM
> To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>; cpwg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR
>  
> Hi Jonathan
>  
> I’m using the term generally.  Please don’t think the words apply only to those in uniform.  We are talking about abuse of the Internet and how to stop it.  And I”m sure there would be a very good argument to say that those engaged in stopping abuse of the Internet should be considered for access.  But again - please lets first talk about a broad definition. then lets talk about how to define those who do it in a way that does not give carte blanche to anyone who wants to set up shop so they can have access.
>  
> So let’s not create a narrow framework for the debate.  But please, let’s stay within a broad framework
>  
> Holly
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 6:54 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> It’s not just law enforcement that help prevent maleware, spam and phishing. It’s researchers, commercial enterprises that build reputational databases and yes, even ip folks because there’s a strong correlation between copyright and trademark infringement and these other woes. Don’t reduce it to law enforcement.
>  
> From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:49 PM
> To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
> Cc: cpwg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR
>  
> Sorry Evan
> 
> I’m with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one.
> 
> Yes, I asked for balance.  And in many of my earlier emails on this issue, I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet. 
> 
> I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants. 
> 
> Holly 
> 
> 
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Holly,
> > 
> > I'm with Carlton on this.
> > 
> > I would remind all to recall the reason we are here: ICANN Bylaw Section 12.2(d)(i):
> > 
> > The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests  individual Internet users.
> > 
> > We are here (primarily, arguably exclusively) to (a) determine positions based on the needs of the billions of Internet users and (b) advance those positions within ICANN as strongly as possible. Our role is not to consider and balance all sides before-the-fact; that is for the greater community-based negotiation and ultimately the Board. We are here as advocates, not conciliators.
> > 
> > Like it or not, ICANN is an adversarial environment in which (Holly and Tijani, you both know this as well as anyone) historically the needs of end-users have taken a back seat to all other interests. If At-Large does not clearly articulate the needs of end users, nobody will -- indeed that is our singular role in ICANN --  and even when we do we're not always listened to. Of course reasonable result and compromise are possible, but let's not handicap our positions before we start. There's been little "balance" or consideration shown to date by those who have already made enforcement of existing ICANN abuse regulations a nightmare and would eagerly roll back even the meagre attempts at protection that already exist. 
> > 
> > When the tolerant and reasonable encounter the intolerant and unreasonable, even if the tolerant are far greater in numbers, the latter gets its way.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Evan
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> > Folks
> > 
> > First - Carlton, while I almost always agree with you, I”m afraid that, this time, I think Bastiaan has made a very good argument and I agree with his statement - which is even more impressive since English is not his first language.  Well done Bastiaan.
> > 
> > And for Carlton - I still think we are on the same page - or close to.  
> > 
> > And to borrow from a presentation I recently attended:  the issue isn’t privacy versus security; it is really an issue of one aspect of security versus another - both are necessary.
> > 
> > Holly
> > On 4 Sep 2018, at 8:43 pm, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > >> On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> Bastiaan:
> > >> You seem adept at destroying context to feed your allergy.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I ’seem adept at destroying’?
> > > 
> > > Ok, thank you… I am not an English native speaker so I had to look it up just to confirm what you might mean. You have a talent for (‘seem adept at’) phrasing your sentences quite archaically ;-)
> > > 
> > > Anyway, perception is of course in the eye of the beholder, which I’ll have to respect and therefore cannot comment on. Suffice to say I completely disagree, I have no intention whatsoever to consciously destroy anything, I could have easily quoted someone else to make my point. One that still stands btw.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> My phrasing was in context of defining what I meant by majority. Your interpretation blithely ignored the contextual meaning..There  is a word for that I cannot recall at the minute.
> > >> 
> > >> Kindly,
> > >> -Carlton
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Right. Not very ‘kind’ from where I sit, but I am not going to take offence here.
> > > 
> > > -Bastiaan
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20180905/241703cf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list