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

Thu Sep 20 16:10:26 UTC 2018

Dear Tijani,

the Statement is indeed long, that's why there should be a half page
executive summary at the beginning, like there used to be in the past.
This one really needs a summary.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 20/09/2018 12:54, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>
>> 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

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180920/b76efb39/attachment-0001.html>