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

Sat Sep 22 11:38:32 UTC 2018

Hi Greg,

I had posted my comments on your draft on the wiki back on 16 Sep.

Regards,

Justine
-----

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 00:10, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> 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> 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 CW, <
> 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>
> <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>
> <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>
> <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
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180922/07e276fb/attachment-0001.html>