<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Sounds like a comment in the making...
and that;'s one of the things I think we should be pushing for is
a real comment period on this Final EWG Report... :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:539B2C46.2040504@cippic.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>