[Gnso-epdp-team] Timing of Feedback on Draft Final Report
AHeineman at ntia.doc.gov
Fri Feb 15 23:52:47 UTC 2019
I must politely disagree with Milton in his characterization of the Recommendation 18 situation. It is more nuanced than that and I welcome a conversation on the subject as I think we can reach agreement on something mutually acceptable. I am happy to raise my concerns again and work with everyone to come to a quick and acceptable solution.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
Date: 2/15/19 17:51 (GMT-05:00)
To: Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>, GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Timing of Feedback on Draft Final Report
I do not understand why you propose to spend time debating this when there is no discernable merit to it.
The issue, in a nutshell, is whether the new policy will refer to “Reasonable Requests for Lawful Disclosure of Non-Public Registration Data,” instead of ‘Reasonable Access’
How can anyone propose to eliminate the word "requests for disclosure" from this part of the report? Just to lay it out as clearly as possible, Rec 18 refers to:
- Minimum Information Required for...requests for disclosure
- Response time for acknowledging receipt of...requests for disclosure
- Requirements for what information is needed in responses to....requests for disclosure
- Logs of Requests, Acknowledgements and Responses to...requests for disclosure
- Urgent requests for disclosure
...and so on...
What is NOT included in Rec 18? Any mention of criteria for deciding whether access shall be granted, what is "lawful," etc.
You characterize one side as saying that if we include the word "requests" in this section then registrars will respond by rejecting all requests. This is not a serious argument. Rec 18 does not establish criteria for disclosure, nor does anything in this report. Rec 18 deals _entirely_ with how REQUESTS for disclosure are handled. It does not govern how or whether such requests will be granted. That issue will be handled later, as we all know
Now, if you are wondering why I sent an intemperate response to Margie yesterday, parts of which I do regret, this is the reason. I feel as if our time, and even our status as rational human beings, is not being respected. Provoking pointless symbolic debates at a period of great time pressure is a form of aggression, a war of attrition. IF you want respectful responses from me and my team, treat us with respect. For those of us who do not get paid to work on this, for whom this is a voluntary form of service undertaken at great personal cost, these kinds of endless disputes over nothing are far more damaging and aggressive than some angry words.
Kurt, you can do this team a favor by recognizing and short circuiting these kinds of time-wasters. Tthat will greatly improve the atmosphere as we enter the end game and prepare for round 2.
> I have had been party to discussions on the recommendation for Reasonable
> Access where the there is not yet agreement on the phrasing “Reasonable
> Requests for Lawful Access” vs “Reasonable Lawful Access” so that I could
> fully understand the concerns between the two phrases. This remaining
> difference is the result of the clock running out as different versions were
> championed at different meetings.
> I think we should place Reasonable Access on the agenda for Tuesday. This is
> an important recommendation and one where we have made great
> headway and come farther than I thought we would. It is always risky for me
> to characterize an issue but I want to take advantage of the work we have
> done to date and the agreement in principle that we have on this
> Recommendation and come to agreement on the language as well.
> During our meetings, I heard two concerns raised in reference to the two
> different phrasings above. Contracted Parties want to ensure that just
> because a request is reasonable or properly submitted, that disclosure is not
> required. The request must still be lawful (e.g., in a Art 6(1)f sense) before a
> disclosure is made. Data requesters want to ensure that registrars will not
> respond merely by rejecting all requests - but that they take reasonable
> steps to determine if the request can be fulfilled in a GDPR-complaint way.
> I think the spirit of the agreement addresses both of those concerns but
> there is concern that the different phrasings allow the agreement in principle
> to be turned. I believe that the Recommendation can be made final by
> adding sentence regarding a reasonable response by registrars and the
> requirement that requests must be GDPR complaint before disclosure can be
> I hope you find that constructive. It is sort of an extraordinary intervention
> on my part but I see an opportunity to arrive at a consensus position on a
> very difficult topic.
> Please let me know if you have questions on either of these two topics.
> Best regards,
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team