[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Drafting an advice to the ICANN board: EPDP final report phase 1

[Alan Greenberg]

In reply to Bastiaan, Marita, Jonathan and Holly, 
the situation was not quite as Bastiaan described.

The ALAC and others had consistently taken the 
position that contracted parties should be 
required to do geographic differentiation in line 
with the stated ICANN intent of keeping WHOIS 
information as available as possible given full 
compliance with GDPR. Although we were not unique 
in this position, I note that this was very 
clearly the position taken by SSAC in light of 
the benefits related to cyber-security issues.

The issue was consistently deferred as not being 
necessary for resolution in phase 1, a position 
that we accepted. At one point there was an 
e-mail sent to the EPDP list by a contracted 
party rep that proposed simply accepting no 
geographic differentiation. There were no 
objections and the issue was not raised during a 
teleconference. It only came to light late in the 
process when the final draft report was being reviewed.

The ALAC and others including the SSAC 
strenuously objected as clearly noted in our 
comments on the draft (attached). Ultimately, we 
(ALAC, SSAC and others) agreed to accept the 
wording in recommendation 16 because debating the 
wording further would not allow us to issue the 
report as scheduled. However, the discussion 
clearly said that the issue WOULD be raised in 
Phase 2. That is the recollection of the ALAC and 
SSAC as well as the EPDP Chair who all expected 
geographic differentiation to be on the Phase 2 agenda.

When staff produced the Phase 2 outline in Kobe, 
the item was missing because "that is what Rec 16 
said", notwithstanding the verbal agreement to 
continue to discuss the issue in Phase 2 (and 
this was accepted by the current acting chair Rafik Dammak).e

The statement will be drafted in two versions for discussion by the ALAC.

Alan

At 28/03/2019 11:58 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>With regard to 
>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105383443
>
>I expressed earlier that I do not think that 
>contracted parties should be mandated to 
>differentiate between registrants on a 
>geographic basis. See rec#16 of the final phase 
>1 EPDP-report. I was on the CPWG call yesterday, 
>but considering the time constraint I felt it 
>was not the place to touch on the specific issue 
>of (non) geographical distinction again as it is 
>not clear to me yet whether the penholders 
>indeed want to raise this a concern in the advice.
>
>(Btw Even if geographical distinction is 
>mandated, according to rec#10 contracted can 
>still choose to redact data even if the GDPR is 
>not applicable. But that is beside the point here)
>
>Besides me potentially disagreeing with the 
>(part of the) content of a (proposed) advice, I 
>am slightly concerned with regard to the process 
>and how it might be perceived by others. Even 
>when only we stress the importance of a Unified 
>Access Model (UAM) and that we want a clear 
>distinction to be made by contracted parties 
>between natural and legal persons, both of which 
>I can agree with, these topics are explicitly to 
>be covered by phase 2. The UAM model is a no 
>brainer and meant to be one of the main 
>end-products of phase 2. And Rec# 17 in the 
>phase 1 end-report is very clear on the natural 
>vs legal distinction that needs to be resolved.
>
>Also:
>
>- We had plenty of opportunities to raise our 
>concerns in the EPDP deliberations themselves, 
>I’m sure Hadia and Alan did a great job;
>- Our concerns are included in our statement in 
>the phase 1 final report that the board will take note of;
>- We reiterated these in the recently shared GAC-ALAC statement
>
>And the final report of phase 1 says on page 148, Annex
>
>'Note the BC / IPC minority statement. All other 
>groups support the Final Report.’
>
>I am sure all groups had to make compromises to 
>reach consensus and support the report. I do not 
>think it would look good if we would be 
>perceived, with an advice to the board, as 
>attempting to open up the report and cherry pick 
>recommendations we like and ask the board not to 
>follow up on those we disagree with.
>
>thanks,
>Bastiaan
>
>
>
>
>
>***  Please note that this communication is 
>confidential, legally privileged, and subject to 
>a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer  ***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ALAC-Statement-EPDP_Phase_1_Final_Report-20190211.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 105927 bytes
Desc: ALAC-Statement-EPDP_Phase_1_Final_Report-20190211.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190329/95772142/ALAC-Statement-EPDP_Phase_1_Final_Report-20190211-0001.pdf>