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

[Bastiaan Goslings]

Thanks a lot, Alan - while my concerns with regard to the ALAC submitting an advice, and how that might be perceived, are not related to rec#16 as such, I very much appreciate your comments.

I still disagree with mandating contracted parties to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, for reasons I mentioned before and I’d be happy to seek (legal) expertise from elsewhere to support my position. If the advice however, without taking a position on the topic itself, refers to

> 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.

I will definitely support that.

thanks again, regards
Bastiaan



***  Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer  ***




> On 29 Mar 2019, at 04:45, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 
> 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
> <ALAC-Statement-EPDP_Phase_1_Final_Report-20190211.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190329/ec99e6a8/signature.asc>