[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Draft ALAC Statement on Proposal for the Framework of a Possible Unified Access Model

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Mon Sep 17 13:33:08 UTC 2018


I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.

Marita


On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> +1
> Excellent remarks
> R
>
>> On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail at christopherwilkinson.eu 
>> <mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> CW 
>> <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Good evening:
>>
>> Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft 
>> ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>
>>
>> --------------------------
>>
>> *ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
>>
>> *Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
>>
>> *General*
>>
>> The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a 
>> useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM 
>> position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going 
>> work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
>>
>> Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it 
>> helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim 
>> proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that 
>> the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct 
>> meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in /italics 
>> /that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
>>
>> At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a 
>> defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC 
>> constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At 
>> Large community and Internet users, world wide.
>> I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of 
>> co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. 
>> Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for 
>> branded products.
>>
>> Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they 
>> are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate 
>> line for ALAC to take.
>>
>> *Third party access*
>>
>> Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by 
>> third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going 
>> to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
>>
>> Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited 
>> parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third 
>> parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly 
>> limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to 
>> be some internal contradiction here.
>>
>> From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of 
>> definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event 
>> of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would 
>> have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, 
>> that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
>>
>> *Eligibility*
>>
>> In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi 
>> stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the 
>> fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly 
>> biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain 
>> stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to 
>> accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by 
>> the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. 
>> Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the 
>> information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, 
>> ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts 
>> as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to 
>> reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective 
>> countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders 
>> in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups 
>> in another jurisdiction.
>>
>> The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to 
>> amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide 
>> scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting 
>> access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the 
>> possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as 
>> referred to above.
>>
>> *Bulk Access*
>>
>> It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to 
>> Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious 
>> breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
>>
>> Now it has got to stop.
>>
>> Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to 
>> unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow 
>> Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as 
>> to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, 
>> agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been 
>> deleted?
>>
>> Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably 
>> creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data 
>> as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced 
>> by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend 
>> all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
>>
>> * * * *
>>
>> In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of 
>> broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk 
>> access, would amount to re-creating the /status quo ante /by any 
>> other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of 
>> the requirements of GDPR.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> CW/16.09.2018
>>
>>     El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan
>>     <greg at isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>> escribió:
>>
>>     All,
>>
>>     At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's
>>     proposal
>>     for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
>>
>>     Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
>>
>>     I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to
>>     this draft.
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>
>>     Greg
>>
>>     --
>>     Greg Shatan
>>     greg at isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>
>>
>>     "The Internet is for everyone"
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     CPWG mailing list
>>     CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     GTLD-WG mailing list
>>     GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>     <mailto: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
>>
>> <COMMENTS ON DRAFT 
>> STATEMENT.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20180917/1897225d/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