<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks Tamir, much appreciated that you took the time to read it! I
am far too close to the document, need someone with new and neutral
eyes to do the reality check.<br>
I would not want to write off these mechanisms as useless....it is
just they are not a match for some of the other mandatory
requirements, and they are, as I put in the comments, the caboose at
the end of the train. Need to have the privacy policy first....<br>
Cheers Steph<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14-06-09 4:03 PM, Tamir Israel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5396130B.3010105@cippic.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
FWIW, it seems to me on a quick read that your concerns are on
point, Steph.<br>
<br>
First, you flag that while one of the core objectives of this RDS
was to provide some privacy over WHOIS, most individuals will not
be able to shield their identity from the general public.
Registrant name and address (but not email address) are 'gated'
and hence not available to the general public. But, as you say in
your note, all registrants are obligated to provide legal contact
info which will be publicly available. This is evident in Annex E
and also in footnote 39. While many big companies may use legal
counsel or other proxies to register, most individuals and even
small businesses will need to use their own name and contact info,
thereby defeating the purpose of permitting their contact info to
remain 'gated'. So the end result is that more data elements are
collected and centralized, without the anticipated <i>pro quo</i>
of having less information 'gated' or 'publicly available'.<br>
<br>
Second, you flag that the RDS' very ambitious data protection
project is problematic and will not serve to effectively protect
even 'gated' data. I think I agree. As far as I can tell, the EWG
proposes to adopt a tiered approach to data protection for RDS
data. It is certainly innovative, but I think ultimately it'll be
ineffective since the EWG report sets way too many parameters in
stone to permit for the data protection mechanisms it adopts to
operate.<br>
<br>
The privacy protection mechanisms suggested by the EWG are:<br>
(1) First, they wish to encode some basic privacy principles and
apply them across all RDS players by means of contract law, backed
up by regulatory enforcement in those jurisdictions that require
such things (not clear how ICANN is going to 'harmonize a basic
level of data protection rights', something that has been tried
and failed repeatedly in multiple fora in the past). <br>
(2) Second, they intend to localize RDS data storage within a
jurisdiction(s) with strong and existing data protection rules
(it's not clear how this jurisdiction(s) will be picked). <br>
(3) Finally, there will be a 'rules engine' that seeks to somehow
codify data protection rules for all the world's jurisdictions and
to, again somehow, apply these to different data elements based on
where these are transferred to, processed, etc. Presumably, data
will be marked up based on jurisdictions in which it was
stored/processed, and this will provide insight into applicable
laws (this ignores realities of the laws of jurisdiction, unless
they intend to impose some blanket forum selection clause in and
impose it on all elements of the RDS ecosystem). <br>
<br>
Ultimately, though, as Steph notes, these efforts are not helpful,
as Registrants are forced to 'consent' to a long and extremely
broad permissible purposes at point of collection (p. 42 --
Stephs' dissent is noted in footnote 7). Once this consent is
obtained, a large number of entities can access, use and further
disclose the information in question for the many permissible
purposes. While the form of consent is subject to the over-arching
harmonized privacy principles (1) and to whatever additional
jurisdictional rules are piled on (2) and (3), the list of
permissible purposes is not variable, and appears offered on a
'take it or leave it' basis. This leaves minimal latitude for any
meaningful operation of data protection principles (except,
perhaps, those relating to data security, access and
accuracy/integrity). <br>
<br>
Nor is there any opportunity to minimize collection, as this too
is 'hard wired' into the EWG's report, which provide a very long
list of mandatory data elements. By contrast, an explicit 'opt-in'
mechanism is adopted for governing whether any data elements a
registrant provides that are gated by default can be made public.
This is good, but it's not clear to me how it helps, as the core
identifying data elements are already public.<br>
<br>
In terms of law enforcement access, they basically write off any
issue since apparently the data in question is not private enough
in their opinion to warrant any legal protection at all under any
jurisdiction. Nonetheless, they feel the need to locate RDS data
in "jurisdiction(s) where law enforcement is globally trusted".
Not sure what that means.<br>
<br>
Perhaps ironically, the document recognizes the need for anonymity
in this context. But it only does so in the context of the proxy
service and secure protected credentials which, as steph points
out in her note, are ineffective in the context of individual
registrants.<br>
<br>
Overall, this seems like an incredibly and unnecessarily complex
system that could be managed far more efficiently with simple
contactability, plus an ICANN-run mechanism for identification
upon demonstration of clear need.<br>
<br>
I could be missing something, though. And also apologies for the
very lengthy email....<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tamir<br>
<br>
On 6/8/2014 10:54 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:5394792E.30202@mail.utoronto.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Folks let me say this:<br>
1. Milton, you were not supposed to publish it! I needed to
edt it to reflect the new status of it being a minority report,
and also no mention of JF Baril<br>
2. We need to be sure I am correct. IF they are right and i
have misread the report, then I look like an idiot. <br>
3. Most of the report is still concensus. AS I think I said in
the 3 pager, recently, certain principles put everything
slightly out of balance....<br>
Sheesh. Can they bann me from ICANN?<br>
ON a positive note, I must say your blog is well read Milton, I
got a sweet note from Mikey. I guess he knows what I feel like
right now...<br>
cheers steph<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-06-08, 3:48 AM, Rafik
Dammak wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAH5sThm44YGG8wDEwHZ5rX_5zxN7V2YyeoD2+NLjWNDcUG4CLQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p dir="ltr">probably "occupy" the 2 public sessions for EWG
i.e. attending them , ask the hard questions and debunk the
myth of having consensus.<br>
privacy issue was suggested by Marilia as 1 of the topics
for the meeting with Board too,<br>
we also should comment the report itself in due time.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Rafik<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quot<blockquote class=" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>p. 6 "This Final Report, including its
recommendations and proposed principles for the
next- generation RDS, reflects a consensus.”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>p. 164 "With the delivery of this Final Report and
its 180 consensus-supported principles, the Board’s
vision has indeed materialized.”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>p. 165 "Among the EWG members were seasoned
entrepreneurs and global leaders (Ajayi, Ala- Pietilä,
Neylon, Rasmussen, and Shah). Their collective expertise
in balancing risks and their results-oriented problem
solving style paved the way to reaching an
early consensus among the EWG.”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This characterization doesn’t seem to quite fit with
Stephanie’s excellent and (astonishingly)
suppressed Dissenting Report…</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How shall we proceed in London?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill<br>
<div><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div link="blue" vlink="#954F72"
style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"
lang="FR">
<div><br>
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none
none;border-top-color:rgb(225,225,225);border-top-width:1pt;padding:3pt
0cm 0cm">
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span
style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US"><span> </span>Denise
Michel [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:denise.michel@icann.org"
style="color:rgb(149,79,114);text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">mailto:denise.michel@icann.org</a>]<span> </span><br>
<b>Sent:</b><span> </span>samedi 7
juin 2014 19:36<br>
<b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Expert
Working Group on gTLD Directory
Services (EWG) Final Report</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"
lang="EN-US">Dear All:</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"
lang="EN-US">The Expert Working Group on
gTLD Directory Services (EWG) has issued
their </span><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf"
style="color:rgb(149,79,114);text-decoration:underline" target="_blank"><span
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">Final
Report</span></a>. Given your group's
interest in this topic, I wanted to bring
this to your attention, along with the
public sessions the EWG has scheduled at
the ICANN London meeting:</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
<ul style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-top:0cm"
type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">An introduction to the
Final Report: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-ewg-final-overview"
style="color:rgb(149,79,114);text-decoration:underline"
target="_blank"><span
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">EWG
Overview of Final Report</span></a>,
Monday, 23 June, 1515 – 1615</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">Two cross-community
discussion sessions: </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></li>
<ul style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-top:0cm"
type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-ewg-final-discussion"
style="color:rgb(149,79,114);text-decoration:underline" target="_blank"><span
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">EWG
Final Report Discussion Session</span></a>, Monday,
23 June, 1700 - 1900</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm
0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ewg-final-discussion"
style="color:rgb(149,79,114);text-decoration:underline" target="_blank"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New
Roman',serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)">EWG
Final Report Discussion Session</span></a><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">,
Wednesday, 25 June, 0800 </span><span
style="font-size:14.5pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">–</span><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"> 1000</span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">The
Final Report fulfills the ICANN Board's
directive to help redefine the purpose and
provision of gTLD registration data, and
provides a foundation to help the ICANN
community (through the GNSO) create a new
global policy for gTLD directory services.
This report represents the culmination of
an intense 15 month period of work during
which this <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-directory-services-2013-02-14-en"
style="color:rgb(149,79,114);text-decoration:underline" target="_blank"><span
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">diverse
group of volunteers</span></a> created
an alternative to today's WHOIS to better
serve the global Internet community -- a
next-generation Registration Directory
Service (RDS).</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">The
EWG looks forward to discussing this with
the ICANN community. Thank you for sharing
this notice broadly.</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">Regards,</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">Denise </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">Denise
Michel</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">VP
Strategic Initiatives</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">ICANN</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"></span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:denise.michel@icann.org"
style="color:rgb(149,79,114);text-decoration:underline"
target="_blank">denise.michel@icann.org</a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div> ***********************************************<br>
William J. Drake<br>
International Fellow & Lecturer<br>
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br>
University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, <br>
ICANN, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ncuc.org" target="_blank">www.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> (direct), <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" target="_blank">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>
(lists),<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.williamdrake.org" target="_blank">www.williamdrake.org</a><br>
*********************************************** </div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>