[council] EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model

Wed Sep 26 20:53:04 UTC 2018

Paul
Your history regarding the Contracted Parties and the Temp Spec is not accurate.

The Contracted Parties asked ICANN repeatedly to deal with the obvious gaps between our contracts, ICANN policies and governing law.
This predates any discussions of GDPR, though it was only with the impending risks of the GDPR and the associated fines that ICANN org started taking our concerns seriously.  The late, rushed, and top-down nature of the Temp Spec was unappealing to everyone, including Contracted Parties.

Registrars and registries are engaged in good faith with the policy development process and want it to succeed, but if the ePDP fails then there will be no binding rules around whois / RDS etc.  The ePDP is specifically designed to address an access model during  a later phase.

Lobbying ICANN directly as the IPC / BC has been doing in my mind undermines the work of the ePDP.
I hope that we can all concentrate on successfully completing the EPDP first, rather than requesting more top-down initiatives from ICANN.

Regards
Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Paul McGrady <PMcGrady at winston.com>
Date: Friday 21 September 2018 at 09:12
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
Cc: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model

Thanks Rafik.  Thanks Darcy.

Darcy, to respond to your request, I’m not sure that I can provide much more background on this than the letter itself, which is pretty self-explanatory.  We all know the history:

  *   GNSO Community working on various policy development efforts to address WHOIS, including protecting privacy and allowing disclosure for legitimate purposes.  .
  *   GDPR comes into effect with deadline for fines.
  *   Certain Contracted Parties become concerned about fines and work with Staff to develop the Temp Spec.  IPC and other folks who need disclosure for legitimate purposes practically beg Staff to include the details of a framework for such disclosures.
  *   Staff produces a Temp Spec for the Board to implement which contains the requirement for disclosures but little detail.
  *   Almost immediately, it is much more difficult to obtain needed disclosures for legitimate purposes, creating a safe haven for all sorts of Internet maladies.  We understand that some do not believe in the existence of this problem, but like most real things, the existence of the problem isn’t dependent on a need for 100% of people to believe in them.
  *   Like Contracted Parties who saw an immediate problem and went to Staff seeking a Temp Spec while GNSO Community policy work was ongoing, IPC and others are working with Staff to (hopefully) get a Temp Spec in place addressing the details for a uniform/unified disclosure process while the Community work continues.  Hopefully, the EPDP produces Policy that finally, after decades of work, solves all of the above.

To the extent that the policy development process is being undermined by the letter it seems to me that it has already been undermined by the request by certain Contracted Parties for the Temp Spec.  That ship has sailed and, respectfully, certain of the Contracted Parties were at the helm.  I know this may be unpopular email, but I think it is best not to dance around the issues or try to get cute in explaining why the letter was sent.  I think as far as the EPDP is concerned, it seems like a non-issue, since as Rafik noted, the letter had no effect on the work of the EPDP.

Apologies for the inevitable slowness in any future responses to this response.  I am in London setting up my daughter’s flat and leaving her here for university, so I will be a bit distracted and out of the usual time zone until next week.

Best,
Paul

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:02 AM
To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
Cc: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model

Hi Darcy,

while the letter was shared in the mailing list by EPDP team member this week, there was no discussion or reaction on that matter within the EPDP team.

Best,

Rafik

Le jeu. 20 sept. 2018 à 03:07, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>> a écrit :
Rafik, as Council liaison to the EPDP, what can you share about the impact the EPDP Team sees here?

Darcy

From: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:11 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model

The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fcorrespondence%2Fbc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C71d033a9821d4ef00ef708d61e8c5549%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636729985406750073&sdata=%2F5e3XBAB9HJLerW3eImKmx9pEWnVev2CGPLuhWxWHGc%3D&reserved=0>) about the accreditation and access model.  This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game.  We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council’s approval of the Charter.  In addition, the EDPB’s July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN and the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter.

Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this?

Thanks,
Darcy
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C71d033a9821d4ef00ef708d61e8c5549%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636729985406760069&sdata=74pu9jvsIQj8g%2FjG8RjpGKpgRxI1O%2FAkA%2BvHjU0jieU%3D&reserved=0>

________________________________
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180926/8607fb8d/attachment-0001.html>