[TSG-Access-RD] ICANN as a proxy

[Tomofumi Okubo]

My understanding is that for "non-public data", that is exactly the case.
Cheers,
Tomofumi

On 12/14/18, 2:45 PM, "Gavin Brown" <gavin.brown at centralnic.com> wrote:

    If ICANN org is willing to put itself in the critical path for handling
    these requests then the problem we're trying to resolve becomes very
    simple indeed! But I would guess that is not the case and perhaps the
    charter text as revised needs to be amended.
    
    G.
    
    On 14/12/2018 19:39, Tomofumi Okubo wrote:
    > Hey Andy!
    > 
    >>    The second sentence implies that ICANN servers would act as a proxy,
    >>   transiting both queries and responses. Is there a legal necessity for
    >>    the information to flow through ICANN?
    > 
    > I believe the benefit of this is twofold.
    > 
    > One is that ICANN is forced to be part of the transaction.
    > It is hard(er) for ICANN to be blamed for when they are not touching anything in the RDAP ecosystem.
    > In other words, it's hard to be a primary suspect if you are not even at the crime scene.
    > 
    > Another is that the contracted party that receive the query interacts only with ICANN which makes it easier for the contracted parties to claim innocence.
    > It allows the contracted parties just innocently responded to ICANN without knowing the nature of the query.
    > 
    > For ICANN to be a legal shield for the contracted parties, this kind of make sense to me.
    > 
    > That being said, the technical feasibility of this model needs to be assessed in this study group.
    > 
    > Just my 2 cents because I'm not a lawyer __
    > 
    > Cheers!
    > Tomofumi
    > 
    > 
    > On 12/14/18, 10:18 AM, "TSG-Access-RD on behalf of Andrew Newton" <tsg-access-rd-bounces at icann.org on behalf of andy at hxr.us> wrote:
    > 
    >     During our last call, Scott and Murray discussed third-party or
    >     distributed authorization, but I'd like to ask about on another aspect
    >     of the operational model that appears in the charter. The current
    >     charter text says:
    >     
    >     "The implementation approach described during that webinar would place
    >     ICANN in the position of determining whether a third party’s query for
    >     non-public registration data ought to be approved to proceed. If
    >     approved, ICANN would ask the appropriate registry or registrar to
    >     provide the requested data to ICANN, which in turn would provide it to
    >     the third party. If ICANN does not approve the request, the query
    >     would be denied."
    >     
    >     The second sentence implies that ICANN servers would act as a proxy,
    >     transiting both queries and responses. Is there a legal necessity for
    >     the information to flow through ICANN?
    >     
    >     -andy
    >     
    >     
    > 
    > 
    > 
    
    -- 
    Gavin Brown
    Chief Technology Officer
    CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
    Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
    for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
    https://www.centralnic.com/
    +44.7548243029
    
    CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with
    company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London,
    EC2R 6AR.
    
    
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4508 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tsg-access-rd/attachments/20181217/0ca27733/smime-0001.p7s>