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

[Alan Greenberg]

To be clear Bastiaan, I support geographic differentiation and to date the ALAC has as well. But the Board is not going to make such a decision. All we can say is that we believe that the EPDP should debate it on its merits, something that it has not done yet.

Alan
--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On March 29, 2019 3:45:12 PM GMT+09:00, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:

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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190329/28b5ee22/attachment-0001.html>