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

[Carlton Samuels]

Tijani:
I completely agree with your articulation of what the At-large position
should be and how that position could be instituted.

I am especially pleased with the recognition that protection of end users
can and is often instantiated by way of third party action.

Excellent!

-Carlton


On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 2:01 am Tijani BEN JEMAA, <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
wrote:

> My dear friends,
>
> Speaking about percentage (98% - 2%) and (0;000000) is to say that
> At-Large must take a position for a part (called majority) against the
> other part (called minority). My take is absolutely different.
> Our duty is to defend the public interest, means security of the end users
> and the best conditions for their utilisation of Internet.
> Our position should be to ensure:
>
>    - the protection of end-users from harmful use of DNS
>    - the protection of their data from harmful usage.
>
>
> This can be reached through:
>
>    - the collection of the necessary data (not more than the necessary)
>    for the registration and for any necessary protection of the DNS from the
>    criminals
>    - Access to the non public data when necessary by third party with
>    legitimate purpose.
>
>
> I find there is an exaggeration of the risk that is frightening some of
> our members pushing towards a non balanced position.
> For the record, the CEO of AFNIC (dot fr registry) announced in the Africa
> Internet Summit 2018 that AFRIC is not publishing the registrant data since
> a while, and that they give access only on request, and yet, we didn’t hear
> of any problem with the dot fr domains so far.
>
> So, again, we don’t have to be extremist for any side. We should have a
> balanced position (thank you Greg) supporting the data collection and
> access as necessary to prevent criminals from harming the end users.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>             +216 52 385 114
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Le 3 sept. 2018 à 20:37, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a
> écrit :
>
> Evan, that is fine for a report, but it is less clear what that means for
> participation in a process such as the edpd.
>
> Let us hypothesize that there are 4 billion users and 2% of them are gTLD
> registrants (80,000,000). Does that mean that Hadia and I should push
> strongly for law enforcement and cybersecurity professionals to have good
> access most of the time, but for 2% of the time we strongly support those
> who want to minimize their access because they do not believe that there is
> sufficient justification to infringe on registrant privacy (ie the "privacy
> fetishists  ;-) )?
>
> That will not give us much credibility!
>
> Remember, it is not a case of nit providing privacy for those who are
> granted those rights under GDPR or similar legislation. That is a given!
>
> Alan
>
> At 03/09/2018 01:35 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> In previous policy activity (IIRC it was with the Red Cross / IOC CCWG) the
> group I was in had similar challenges. So in the final report issues and
> positions were broken down this way:
>
> 1) Consensus (rough rather than unanimity)
> 2) Strong support but significant opposition
> 3) Minority position
> 4) Divergence without clear direction
>
> It's not unreasonable to do this, recognizing both majority and minority
> views. It might help to also readers to identify if opposition or minority
> views are held by identifiable subgroups (ie, members of At-Large who are
> also registrants or associated with contracted parties, or from a
> particular geographical region).
>
> Consensus is great, but if unavailable ought not to be replaced with
> tyranny of the majority. We owe our community the honesty to recognize
> diversity, not just in the makeup of our leadership but also in the makeup
> of our positions.
>
> PS: I want to thank Greg for adding the phrase "privacy fetishists" to my
> ICANN lexicon. It's a more useful phrase than it should be.
>
> ___________________
> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
> @evanleibovitch/@el56
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180904/d0b16507/attachment.html>