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

Thu Sep 20 10:54:08 UTC 2018

Dear all,

I didn’t want to comment before I read the proposed UAM, Greg proposed statement and Christopher comments.
I would like first to thank Greg for the comprehensive statement and the analysis he made. A huge work even if I find it not a statement of ALAC to advise the board or to comment on the ICANN org proposal during a public comment period, but a too long advocating text that can be useful for internal discussion.
When we make such long document, there will likely be almost none to read it. I think a more focused and direct to the point statement would be much more efficient.
To the content, I have to agree with Christopher remarks. I also have reservation on registry operators to be required to provide access. For the record, Verisign has only thin whois of dot com, so, registries don’t have always all collected data. And why we need to distribute the responsibility of giving access? I think Registrars only should be required to give access.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
             +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Le 18 sept. 2018 à 16:34, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> Hello CW,
> 
> Am sorry I caused some confusion, it's been clarified that the draft
> statement on this subject is currently not at it's voting stage so there
> will indeed be revisions and I expect that your comments will be taken into
> consideration.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> 
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 16:29 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> CW, <
> mail at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
> 
>> Seun: What should I do now? Several support my comments. None support the
>> original text?
>> 
>> When is the next CPWG meeting?
>> 
>> C.
>> 
>> El 18 de septiembre de 2018 a las 15:38 Seun Ojedeji <
>> seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> escribió:
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
> 
> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180920/fa97943b/attachment-0001.html>