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

Tue Sep 18 13:38:20 UTC 2018

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> 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> 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>
>> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180918/4e338e58/attachment.html>