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

Wed Sep 5 04:06:06 UTC 2018

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 22:53 Holly Raiche, <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:

> Thanks Jonathan
>
> Yes, true.  But if we are to make an argument that those who are NOT ‘law
> enforcement’ should have access, then we have to say why.  Under the GDPR,
> it simply is not good enough to say that I should have access because I
> hunt down the bad guys.  If we are clear that we must operate within GDPR
> bounds, then there has to be  reason why an individual who isn’t in uniform
> should have access.
>

SO: Absolute +1 to the above, resonates partly with my antivirus analogy.

Regards

> Holly
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 7:18 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Holly. I appreciate you have a nuanced view but the term “law
> enforcement” gets used pretty specifically to exclude commercial interests
> so I just wanted to be clear.
>
> *From:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:01 PM
> *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> *Cc:* Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>; cpwg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible
> move related to GDPR
>
> Hi Jonathan
>
> I’m using the term generally.  Please don’t think the words apply only to
> those in uniform.  We are talking about abuse of the Internet and how to
> stop it.  And I”m sure there would be a very good argument to say that
> those engaged in stopping abuse of the Internet should be considered for
> access.  But again - please lets first talk about a broad definition. then
> lets talk about how to define those who do it in a way that does not give
> carte blanche to anyone who wants to set up shop so they can have access.
>
> So let’s not create a narrow framework for the debate.  But please, let’s
> stay within a broad framework
>
> Holly
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 6:54 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> It’s not just law enforcement that help prevent maleware, spam and
> phishing. It’s researchers, commercial enterprises that build reputational
> databases and yes, even ip folks because there’s a strong correlation
> between copyright and trademark infringement and these other woes. Don’t
> reduce it to law enforcement.
>
> *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Holly
> Raiche
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:49 PM
> *To:* Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* cpwg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible
> move related to GDPR
>
>
> Sorry Evan
>
> I’m with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one.
>
> Yes, I asked for balance.  And in many of my earlier emails on this issue,
> I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies
> (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet.
>
> I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to
> personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need
> the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants.
>
> Holly
>
>
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Holly,
> >
> > I'm with Carlton on this.
> >
> > I would remind all to recall the reason we are here: ICANN Bylaw Section
> 12.2(d)(i):
> >
> > The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the
> activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests  individual
> Internet users.
> >
> > We are here (primarily, arguably exclusively) to (a) determine positions
> based on the needs of the billions of Internet users and (b) advance those
> positions within ICANN as strongly as possible. Our role is not to consider
> and balance all sides before-the-fact; that is for the greater
> community-based negotiation and ultimately the Board. We are here as
> advocates, not conciliators.
> >
> > Like it or not, ICANN is an adversarial environment in which (Holly and
> Tijani, you both know this as well as anyone) historically the needs of
> end-users have taken a back seat to all other interests. If At-Large does
> not clearly articulate the needs of end users, nobody will -- indeed that
> is our singular role in ICANN --  and even when we do we're not always
> listened to. Of course reasonable result and compromise are possible, but
> let's not handicap our positions before we start. There's been little
> "balance" or consideration shown to date by those who have already made
> enforcement of existing ICANN abuse regulations a nightmare and would
> eagerly roll back even the meagre attempts at protection that already exist.
>
> >
> > When the tolerant and reasonable encounter the intolerant and
> unreasonable, even if the tolerant are far greater in numbers, the latter
> gets its way.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Evan
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> wrote:
> > Folks
> >
> > First - Carlton, while I almost always agree with you, I”m afraid that,
> this time, I think Bastiaan has made a very good argument and I agree with
> his statement - which is even more impressive since English is not his
> first language.  Well done Bastiaan.
> >
> > And for Carlton - I still think we are on the same page - or close to.
> >
> > And to borrow from a presentation I recently attended:  the issue isn’t
> privacy versus security; it is really an issue of one aspect of security
> versus another - both are necessary.
> >
> > Holly
> > On 4 Sep 2018, at 8:43 pm, Bastiaan Goslings <
> bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Bastiaan:
> > >> You seem adept at destroying context to feed your allergy.
> > >
> > >
> > > I ’seem adept at destroying’?
> > >
> > > Ok, thank you… I am not an English native speaker so I had to look it
> up just to confirm what you might mean. You have a talent for (‘seem adept
> at’) phrasing your sentences quite archaically ;-)
> > >
> > > Anyway, perception is of course in the eye of the beholder, which I’ll
> have to respect and therefore cannot comment on. Suffice to say I
> completely disagree, I have no intention whatsoever to consciously destroy
> anything, I could have easily quoted someone else to make my point. One
> that still stands btw.
> > >
> > >
> > >> My phrasing was in context of defining what I meant by majority. Your
> interpretation blithely ignored the contextual meaning..There  is a word
> for that I cannot recall at the minute.
> > >>
> > >> Kindly,
> > >> -Carlton
> > >
> > >
> > > Right. Not very ‘kind’ from where I sit, but I am not going to take
> offence here.
> > >
> > > -Bastiaan
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180905/33ba6856/attachment.html>