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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sun Sep 23 00:51:26 UTC 2018


Justine and all,

I hope to work on redraft/response tomorrow. Last week was bad....

Greg

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:39 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> I had posted my comments on your draft on the wiki back on 16 Sep.
>
> Regards,
>
> Justine
> -----
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 00:10, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Tijani,
>>
>> the Statement is indeed long, that's why there should be a half page
>> executive summary at the beginning, like there used to be in the past. This
>> one really needs a summary.
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> On 20/09/2018 12:54, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I didn’t want to comment before I read the proposed UAM, Greg proposed
>> statement and Christopher comments.
>> I would like first to thank Greg for the comprehensive statement and the
>> analysis he made. A huge work even if I find it not a statement of ALAC to
>> advise the board or to comment on the ICANN org proposal during a public
>> comment period, but a too long advocating text that can be useful for
>> internal discussion.
>> When we make such long document, there will likely be almost none to read
>> it. I think a more focused and direct to the point statement would be much
>> more efficient.
>> To the content, I have to agree with Christopher remarks. I also have
>> reservation on registry operators to be required to provide access. For
>> the record, Verisign has only thin whois of dot com, so, registries don’t
>> have always all collected data. And why we need to distribute the
>> responsibility of giving access? I think Registrars only should be required
>> to give access.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>> Executive Director
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>              +216 52 385 114
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Le 18 sept. 2018 à 16:34, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> Hello CW,
>>
>> Am sorry I caused some confusion, it's been clarified that the draft
>> statement on this subject is currently not at it's voting stage so there
>> will indeed be revisions and I expect that your comments will be taken
>> into
>> consideration.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 16:29 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu CW, <
>> mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Seun: What should I do now? Several support my comments. None support the
>> original text?
>>
>> When is the next CPWG meeting?
>>
>> C.
>>
>> El 18 de septiembre de 2018 a las 15:38 Seun Ojedeji <
>> seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> escribió:
>>
>> Hello Alan,
>>
>> Wrong call, I think I may have mixed up the statements:
>> https://community.icann.org/x/CwA5BQ
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 12:47 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Alan,
>>
>> Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since
>> ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the
>> current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to
>> review
>> the statement accordingly.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
>> <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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 CW <
>> 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>
>> <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
>>
>> "The Internet is for everyone"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> <COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.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 listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180922/6187c3bb/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