[Epdp-dt] Edits to the charter

Wed Jul 4 08:59:07 UTC 2018

Thanks, Susan, Rubens and Stephanie. I’ve added your comments to the Scope Google Doc (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x2k9e3w752j-C_Ix43A7HSDV2G-_zXlyzZozei4WNJ0/edit). If there are further comments, and especially proposed compromise language, please feel free to add.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 05:13
To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" <epdp-dt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Edits to the charter

I agree with all of Rubens' observations, and would note that changing "unified" to "uniform" is already a policy decision.  ICANN called its model a "Unified access model".  It will not and cannot be uniform across some parameters, so I find it misleading as a label.  Access model is sufficient.

And to reiterate, we do not have the bandwidth to do both at the same time.  Furthermore, setting up an implementation scheme is implementation.

cheers Stephanie

On 2018-07-03 23:00, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Susan,

Comments inline.

On 3 Jul 2018, at 23:37, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello Marika,

The BC has agreed upon adding the following to the draft charter.
Add highlighted text to section j of charter Draft:
j)      Disclosure of non-public data to outside parties, including definition of terms in the Temp Spec, such as “reasonable access”
j1) Should existing requirements in Temporary Specification remain in place until a Uniform Access Model is finalized?

Considering your last comment, perhaps removing the capitalisation in Uniform Access Model ? And considering all the controversies regarding uniform, perhaps not using uniform or any other adjective and going for "access model" ?

On a different matter, the EPDP can choose every one of 4 options: ( ) accept, ( ) reject, ( ) change, ( ) out of scope of PDPs. So something in the charter can't automatically presume an outcome out, like "remain in place", which is what it would be doing. So by putting something like this in the charter, Council would be actually making policy.

The BC requests that the Temp Spec Annex is added back into the EPDP charter and work on access be in parallel with all other work.
As many others mentioned, expanding the scope is likely setting up this effort to failure.
On mentioning one specific topic as made in parallel, why we are defining something that is usually done by the WG in finding optimal paths thru discussions ?

Also include the following language concerning access to the scope of the ePDP charter.
EPDP scope already includes developing policy for access, and for RDAP to replace Port 43.  This scope should include policy development for tiered access via RDAP+, which could accept an accreditation token and purpose for query. This would allow legally-accredited entities to access non-public Whois if and when such accreditation is accomplished.   The design of accreditation processes and legal clearance for those accreditation models would occur entirely outside of this EPDP.  If and when an Accreditation model is cleared by appropriate legal authorities, RDAP+ should be ready to accept, log, and respond to these accredited access queries.

There are two mentions of "RDAP+" above but there is no IETF-protocol for that name. What would that mean, and knowing what it means, how to describe then in technical references currently defined ?
Also, by only mentioning an accreditation token and a purpose, we are limiting the decisions of the WG and making policy beforehand. For instance, for having an specific result for an specific object an specific allowance might be needed.
Also, "legally-accredited" would imply accreditations that might be legal but not desirable. Extreme example: someone could be an accredited child molester.
Also, queries can not be accredited, since they are transactions, not entities.

This also looks like policy making in the charter to me.

The BC requests that we refer to a uniform access model as a generic term and does not refer to the ICANN org model Uniform Access Model.

Agreed.

Rubens

Best regards,

Susan Kawaguchi

Councilor for the Business Constituency

_______________________________________________
Epdp-dt mailing list
Epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt

_______________________________________________

Epdp-dt mailing list

Epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180704/17e805b9/attachment.html>