[Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Mon Sep 23 15:15:32 UTC 2019

This is a pretty good overview of the models but I think there is a fourth option in there that needs to be aired.
In Model #1, ICANN is the central point for distributing queries. You imply further down in your discussion that ICANN is ALSO the decision maker regarding disclosure. However, it does not have to be that way. ICANN could be a central point for distributing queries, but the ultimate decision could still rest with the registrar.

This, in fact, is the model we see as most viable in terms of gaining consensus among stakeholders and operating efficiently and legally.


From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 1:34 PM
To: 'James M. Bladel' <jbladel at godaddy.com>; 'Sarah Wyld' <swyld at tucows.com>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks

Thanks much, James.  My observation is about the models we discussed in L.A.  (What kinds of hamburgers are on the menu?)  We should be precise about what we mean by "distributed".  I see three models:

  *   Model #1: Queries come from requestors into a central point (run somehow by ICANN), that central point distributes the queries to the relevant registrars/registries, then the central point routes the replies back to the requestors.  The central point also passes out authentication credentials to the parties making queries. This is the technical model the TSG wrote about.  This has a DISTRIBUTED data model - the data resides at the registries/registrars.  It has CENTRALIZED query input/output and access/authentication functions.
  *   Model #2: A central point passes out authentication credentials, and requestors and registries/registrars then use those to trade queries with each other directly. This is a DISTRIBUTED model in two ways:  the data is distributed because it resides at the registries/registrars, and query-making and response takes place among distributed parties.  It is CENTRALIZED in one way: access/authentication functions.
  *   Model #3: ICANN holds a registry containing all RDS data, obtained from the registries/registrars, and all queries go to and immediately served back from there.  The central point also controls access (authentication creds).  This is all CENTRALIZED.  I will call this the Lord of the Rings Model: "One registry to rule them all / One registry to find them / One registry to bring them all / And at ICANN bind them."

In Model #1, ICANN can be the party making the disclosure decisions.  In that case, the registry/registrar would be acting pretty much as a data processor - if ICANN sends it a query, the registry/registrar simply supplies the data.   Or, the registrar/registry can be the decision-maker in model #1.

Model #2 only allows the registry/registrar to be the decision-maker.

Model #3 exists only for ICANN to be the decision-maker.

So, ICANN can be "the decider" without a centralized registry.  The most crucial question is whether ICANN can or will act as the decider.  If ICANN's the decider, then we have a choice between Model #1 or Model #3.  If ICANN will not be the decider, then we have a choice of Model #1 or Model #2.

Sarah posited ICANN as the decider, and then said the registry/registrar would be making 6(1)f decisions.  I didn't understand that, because there can only be one decider.

So, we need to know who the decider will be.  And the WG should enumerate the plusses and minuses of each of the models.

All best,

From: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 11:35 AM
To: Greg Aaron <greg at illumintel.com<mailto:greg at illumintel.com>>; 'Sarah Wyld' <swyld at tucows.com<mailto:swyld at tucows.com>>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks

Greg et al -

Sarahs' Alt super powers expired at midnight yesterday and her laptop has now turned back in to a pumpkin.  So I'll respond to Greg and pose a few questions to ICANN Staff.

Greg - In this case, Yes. "Addressed" = making the disclosure decision, and (if affirmative) providing the Requestor with the requested non-public data.  For clarity, "provided" can mean that ICANN sends the data directly to the Requestor, or somehow causes another (contracted) party to transmit the data to the Requestor.

Many EPDP members have expressed a desire to work with ICANN directly, rather than route requests to  individual Contracted Parties.  They would also prefer to have ICANN make the disclosure determination, as opposed to leaving this to the affected Contracted Party (please jump in if I'm misunderstanding/mischaracterizing this point).

Therefore, the questions we (me, Sarah, Registrars, ePDP) would like to refer to our Staff Liaisons are:

Does ICANN have a clear preference on whether or not it will:
1. Field these requests for non-public data
2. Maintain its own RDS replica database
3. Make a/the determination of the validity of the request
4. Assume responsibility for this decision, in any scenario where ICANN doesn't hold the data directly and must require a Contracted Party to respond to the Requestor (even if the Contracted Party disputes ICANN's determination).

We have been dancing around these questions for a quite a while, and I now believe the answers stand between us and progress on our work.  Either ICANN agrees to assume some/all of the role of decision-maker (and accept responsibility for making this decision), or we abandon the "centralized" version of SSAD and instead focus our efforts on developing a distributed model (which is expressly opposed by some "requestor" stakeholders).

Either way, the is the fork in the road, and we need a clear path forward. If there are no further questions or objections, I recommend that Marika/Staff refer this to our liaisons.


James Bladel
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Aaron <greg at illumintel.com<mailto:greg at illumintel.com>>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 14:25
To: 'Sarah Wyld'; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks

Notice:This email is from an external sender.

When you say "addressed" what do you mean -- that ICANN decides whether the data should be disclosed in response to a query?

From: Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com<mailto:swyld at tucows.com>>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 11:16 AM
To: Greg Aaron <greg at illumintel.com<mailto:greg at illumintel.com>>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks

Hi Greg,

"Responding party" here would mean that requests are received and addressed by ICANN Org. This email focused specifically on questions raised by ICANN Org working in this capacity, I'm interested to see what other scenarios you could expect to occur here.



Sarah Wyld

Domains Product Team


+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

On 9/19/2019 10:12 AM, Greg Aaron wrote:
Sarah, what do you mean by "responding party"?  For example so your scenarios assume that ICANN is acting in a specific legal capacity?

I ask because depending on what you mean, there may be other scenarios.

All best,

From: Gnso-epdp-team<gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 3:18 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks

Hello all,

During the recent EPDP face-to-face meetings in Los Angeles, several members of the working group expressed a desire to position ICANN as the responding party to requests for disclosure of non-public registration data.

In order to fulfill this request, one of two things must be true. Either:

  1.  ICANN Org maintains a current (<24 hours) copy of the entire RDS database; or
  2.  ICANN has some mechanism (contract clause) to compel the Contracted Party to disclose the data to ICANN or the requestor

These potential scenarios raise the following questions:

  1.  In the first scenario, does ICANN accept the legal risks and operational costs of maintaining its own replica of all RDS data for gTLDs? If not, how would those risks and costs be addressed?
  2.  In the second scenario, will ICANN "relay" disclosed data between the requestor and the Registry/Registrar?
  3.  What should be done in situations where ICANN instructs the Registry/Registrar to disclose data (either to ICANN or the requestor), but the contracted party has determined that the request is not legitimate and refuses? Is this matter referred to ICANN compliance?

Thank you,


Sarah Wyld

Domains Product Team


+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190923/d4c1eac3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list