[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [SPAM] Re: [registration-issues-wg] ALAC Statement regarding EPDP
Carlton Samuels
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue Aug 7 16:42:17 UTC 2018
I say again. If anyone feels that a person who buys a domain name has
exactly the same interest as one who simply goes to a website to buy a
service or gather some information then the idea of motivation as premise
for action is a lie.
I do not contest that a registrant can and do have privacy interest the
same as that fabled person described above. What I contend is that in the
business of policy-making - which is the epitome of balancing interests! -
and in comparing the relatively few registrants to the much larger ordinary
user group, the At-Large is compelled to act in ways that benefit the
larger number.
It is my view that considering the predations we are all aware of and using
the teeter-totter metaphor, the larger number would likely tilt it towards
security than not. This is so even in the matter of public law. This is
the principled position that the ALAC should declare and which the
At-Large representatives should take and make referential in the ePDP.
This is not even a nuanced view. And I am unanimous on that.
-Carlton
==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:00 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:
> To Tijani's point, even registrants are end users and while they are end
> users, we're trying to protect their interests. It's NOT a distinct group
> of people but a type of use of the internet which is pervasive. We are ALL
> "end users" (ie making reservations, doing banking, etc.) MOST of the time.
> I would content that our job is the represent the interests of people
> engaged in end user activities.
>
> On 8/6/18, 12:08 PM, "GTLD-WG on behalf of Marita Moll" <
> gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> wrote:
>
> I am in agreement with Tijani, Holly, Bastian and Michele. Perhaps it
> is
> unintentional, but the language does send the message that we are
> looking more carefully at security than privacy. I am also not
> convinced
> that end-users would want us to do that.
>
> Marita
>
>
> On 8/3/2018 10:30 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> > Very interesting discussion. This issue has been discussed several
> > times and the positions didn’t change.
> > What bothers me is the presentation of the registrants interest
> > as opposite to the remaining users ones. they are not since the
> > registrants are also subject to the domain abuse.
> > You are speaking about 4 billion users; these include all:
> contracted
> > parties, business, registrants, governments, etc. We are about
> > defending the interest of all of them as individual end users, not
> as
> > registry, registrar, businessman, minister, etc….
> > You included the cybersecurity researchers; you know how Cambridge
> > Analytica got the American data from Facebook? They requested to
> have
> > access to these data for research, and the result was the American
> > election result impacted.
> >
> > So, I agree with Bastiaan that we need to be careful and care about
> > the protection of personal data as well as the prevention of any
> > harmful use of the domain names, both together.
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> > Executive Director
> > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> > Phone: +216 98 330 114
> > +216 52 385 114
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >> Le 3 août 2018 à 07:22, Bastiaan Goslings
> >> <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>>
>
> >> a écrit :
> >>
> >> Thanks for clarifying, Alan.
> >>
> >> As a matter of principle I agree with Holly - and Michele. While I
> >> think I understand the good intent of what you are saying, your
> >> earlier responses almost sound to me like a false ‘security versus
> >> privacy’ dichotomy. Like, the number of people (users) that care
> >> about security as opposed to those (registrants) that want their
> >> privacy protected to the max is larger. Etc.
> >>
> >> Apologies if I am oversimplifying things here, I do not mean to.
> >>
> >> In this particular EPDP case though I am convinced that we can find
> a
> >> common ground on what the ALAC members and alternates should bring
> to
> >> the table. In terms of perceived registrants’ and general Internet
> >> end-users’ interests. As you rightly state, it is about being GDPR
> >> compliant. So we do not have to be philosophical about a rather
> broad
> >> term like ‘privacy’ and argue about whether it is in conflict with
> >> e.g. the interest of LEAs. Indeed, ‘Privacy is not absolute’.
> >> However, ‘due process’ is a(nother) no brainer, not just because it
> >> might be a legal requirement. From what I understand the work being
> >> done on defining Access and Accreditation criteria is keeping that
> >> principle in mind, and within in the MS context of the EPDP we can
> >> together see to it that it does end up properly enshrined in policy
> >> and contracts.
> >>
> >> -Bastiaan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 01:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> >>> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Holly, the original statement ends with "All within the
> constraints
> >>> of GDPR of course."
> >>>
> >>> I don't know how to make that clearer. We would be absolutely
> >>> FOOLISH to argue for anything else, since it will not be
> implementable.
> >>>
> >>> That being said, if through the EPDP or otherwise we can help make
> >>> the legal argument for why good access for the folks we list at
> the
> >>> end is within GDPR, more power to us.
> >>>
> >>> GDPR (and eventually similar legislation/regulation elsewhere) is
> >>> the overall constraint. It is equivalent to the laws of physics
> >>> which for the moment we need to consider inviolate.
> >>>
> >>> So my statement that "other issues trump privacy" is within that
> >>> context. But just as proportionality governs what GDPR will decree
> >>> as private in any given case, so it will govern what is not
> private.
> >>> It all depends on making the legal argument and ultimately in
> needed
> >>> convincing the courts. They are the arbiters, not me or anyone
> else
> >>> in ICANN.
> >>>
> >>> In the US, there is the constitutional right to freedom of speech,
> >>> but it is not unconstrained and there are limits to what you are
> >>> allowed and not allowed to say. And from time to time, the courts
> >>> and legislatures weigh in and decide where the line is.
> >>>
> >>> Alan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> At 02/08/2018 06:42 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
> >>>> Hi Alan
> >>>>
> >>>> I have concerns with your statement - and since your reply below,
> >>>> with our statement of principles for the EPDP.
> >>>>
> >>>> As I suggested in my email of 1 August, we need to be VERY clear
> >>>> that we are NOT arguing against implementation a policy that is
> >>>> compliant with the GDPR. We are arguing for other issues that
> >>>> impact on users - WITHIN the umbrella of the GDPR. And if we do
> >>>> not make that very clear, then we look as if we are not prepared
> to
> >>>> operate within the bounds of the EPDP - which is all about
> >>>> developing a new policy to replace the RDS requirements that will
> >>>> allow registries/registrars to comply with their ICANN contracts
> >>>> and operate within the GDPR framework.
> >>>>
> >>>> So your statement below that ‘yes, other issues trump privacy’ -
> >>>> misstates that. What we are (or should be) arguing for is a
> >>>> balance of rights of access that - to the greatest extend
> possible
> >>>> - recognises the value of RDS to some constituencies with
> >>>> legitimate purposes - WITHIN the GDPR framework. That implicitly
> >>>> accepts that people/organisations that once had free and
> >>>> unrestricted access to the data will no longer have that open
> access.
> >>>>
> >>>> And for ALAC generally, I will repeat what I said in my 1 August
> >>>> email - our statement of principles must be VERY clear that we
> are
> >>>> NOT arguing for a new RDS policy that goes outside of the GDPR.
> >>>>
> >>>> Holly
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 1:29 am, Alan Greenberg <
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> >>>> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> At 02/08/2018 10:37 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> >>>>>> Jonathan / Alan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for the clarifications.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3 - I don't know how you can know what the interests of a user
> >>>>>> are. The assumption you seem to be making is that due process
> and
> >>>>>> privacy should take a backseat to access to data
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Privacy is not absolute but based on various other issues. So
> yes,
> >>>>> we are saying that in some cases, the other issues trump
> privacy.
> >>>>> Perhaps we differ on where the dividing line is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 4 - Same as 3. Plenty of ccTLDs never offered PII in their
> public
> >>>>>> whois and there weren't any issues with security or stability.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Skipping due process for "ease of access" is a very slippery
> and
> >>>>>> dangerous slope.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both here and in reply to #3, the term "due process" tends to be
> >>>>> used in reference to legal constraints associated with law
> >>>>> enforcement actions as sanctioned by laws and courts. That is
> one
> >>>>> path to unlocking otherwise private information. A major aspect
> of
> >>>>> the GDPR implementation will be identifying other less
> cumbersome
> >>>>> and restricted processes for accessing WHOIS data by a variety
> of
> >>>>> partners. It will not be unconstrained nor will it be as
> >>>>> cumbersome as going to court (hopefully).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Michele
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon
> >>>>>> Blacknight Solutions
> >>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> >>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/
> >>>>>> https://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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 02/08/2018, 15:03, "Jonathan Zuck"
> >>>>>> <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Michele!
> >>>>>> 3. Where there appears to be a conflict of interest between a
> >>>>>> registrant and non-registrant end user, we'll be endeavoring to
> >>>>>> represent the interests of the non-registrant end user.
> >>>>>> 4. Related to 3. This is simply an affirmation of the
> interests
> >>>>>> of end users in a stable and secure internet and it is those
> >>>>>> interests we'll be representing. We've included law enforcement
> >>>>>> because efficiencies regarding their access may come up. Just
> >>>>>> because there's always a way for them to get to data doesn't
> mean
> >>>>>> it's the best way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Make sense?
> >>>>>> Jonathan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> On
> >>>>>> Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 12:34 PM
> >>>>>> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; CPWG
> >>>>>> <cpwg at icann.org>
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] ALAC
> >>>>>> Statement regarding EPDP
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1 - good
> >>>>>> 2 - good
> >>>>>> 3 - I don't understand what that means
> >>>>>> 4 - Why are you combining law enforcement and private
> parties?
> >>>>>> Law enforcement can always get access to data when they follow
> >>>>>> due process.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Michele
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon
> >>>>>> Blacknight Solutions
> >>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> >>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/
> >>>>>> https://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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 01/08/2018, 17:27, "registration-issues-wg on behalf of
> Alan
> >>>>>> Greenberg"
> >>>>>> <registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on
> behalf
> >>>>>> of alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yesterday, the EPDP Members were asked to present a 1-3
> minute
> >>>>>> summary of their groups position in regard to the EPDP.
> The
> >>>>>> following
> >>>>>> is the statement agreed to by me, Hadia, Holly and Seun.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. The ALAC believes that the EPDP MUST succeed and
> will
> >>>>>> be working
> >>>>>> toward that end.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. We have a support structure that we are organizing
> to
> >>>>>> ensure
> >>>>>> that what we present here is understood by our community
> >>>>>> and has
> >>>>>> their input and support.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. The ALAC believes that individual registrants are
> >>>>>> users and we
> >>>>>> have regularly worked on their behalf (as in the PDP that
> we
> >>>>>> initiated to protect registrant rights when their domains
> >>>>>> expire), if
> >>>>>> registrant needs differ from those of the 4 billion
> >>>>>> Internet users
> >>>>>> who are not registrants, those latter needs take
> precedence. We
> >>>>>> believe that GDPR and this EPDP are such a situation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4. Although some Internet users consult WHOIS and will
> >>>>>> not be able
> >>>>>> to do so in some cases going forward, our main concern is
> >>>>>> access for
> >>>>>> those third parties who work to ensure that the Internet
> is
> >>>>>> a safe
> >>>>>> and secure place for users and that means that law
> enforcement,
> >>>>>> cybersecurity researchers, those combatting fraud in
> domain
> >>>>>> names,
> >>>>>> and others who help protect users from phishing, malware,
> spam,
> >>>>>> fraud, DDoS attacks and such can work with minimal
> reduction in
> >>>>>> access to WHOIS data. All within the constraints of GDPR
> of
> >>>>>> course.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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 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 <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CPWG mailing list
> >> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cpwg/attachments/20180807/e57ec86a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list