<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
The EWG's odd statement to the effect that a warrant is never
required for subscriber info has just been contradicted by Canada's
highest court. Does this mean Canadian law enforcement will be
locked out of the authentication process set up for the RDS?<br>
<br>
R. v. Sencer, 2014 SCC 43<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14233/index.do">http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14233/index.do</a><br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tamir<br>
<br>
On 6/10/2014 5:16 AM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:061B751D-6E0C-4E06-8661-1C4A3965B877@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
This has the makings of a good blog post…?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jun 9, 2014, at 10:03 PM, Tamir Israel <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca">tisrael@cippic.ca</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> 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=windows-1252"
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=windows-1252">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>