<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">If there is no support
for my comments, I will withdraw them and submit as myh own.
Since I am the most active member of the RDS PDP, and your rep
on the WHOIS review 2 team, and on the PPSAI IRT, and was on
the PPSAI, and on the WHOIS conflicts with Law Implementation
Advisory Group, I think I am in touch with reality. Plus I
have read all the documents....and there are lots of things to
digest. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">The ECO analysis is
the most thorough I have seen. I am not convinced about their
proposed clearinghouse model, but that is a future step.
Naturally they have not consulted the data commissioners, they
understand that the data commissioners cannot give them a
determination. ICANN no doubt found that out when they
visited the Article 29 Working Party in January.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I think you should
read the sections on law enforcement very carefully, circa
page 59. During the call that the IPC arranged this week,
Goran was very clear that the models ICANN proposed were not
actual working models, they were more like strawman
documents. They are inviting comments on all aspects of the
problem. Read the ECO document, then see if you still want to
go with Model 3, when there is really not a good
implementation plan for it. Also read the Article 29
Statement on Cross Border Electronic Evidence, and the
Directive on Policing data. I think the best option for
managing all these slightly separate initiatives, since they
will have an impact on user privacy rights, is with the ECO
model. Of course I could be wrong, and am happy to submit my
comments separately if there is no support.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">PS apologies for any
typos, there is a giant 2 inch barcode going down the centre
of my screen, so I cannot read what I write at the moment.</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-01-28 22:24, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CY1PR0701MB127487F6A958986BE80CC48FA1E50@CY1PR0701MB1274.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Courier New";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">MM here reporting from the further reaches
of the policy committee.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So here as far as I can tell is the only
response I have seen on the debate between models 3 and 2b in
the PC:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">>I will try to get the revised
comments on the models that have been
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">>submitted in before I run for
the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">>happen. The legal analysis will
come next week, it is a lot harder and
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">>more complex....but I want to get
my questions on the table. It will be
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">>a long time before this is
over....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">>We need to endorse the ECO model
very strongly, in my view. While
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">>option 3 looks good, it is rather
unworkable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WHY is model 3 “unworkable?” No
explanation provided. In fact this is the inverse of the
truth: Model 2b is literally and provably unworkable because
it requires ICANN to set up a system of certification in a
matter of 3 months, which everyone should be able to see is
unworkable. Insofar as such an “interim” solution gets done in
such an unworkably short period of time, it will only happen
if it is dictated unilaterally by ICANN staff.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Folks, we have spent the last _<i>15 years</i>_
trying to get something like model 3 as a privacy-respecting
approach to Whois, and now that it is within our grasp, I
cannot believe that people we thought were privacy advocates
are telling us it is “unworkable.” WTF? Why is anyone in NCSG
trying to get us trapped into an interim solution that will be
dictated behind the scenes by special interests and will allow
trademark lawyers and LEAs all kinds of loopholes to get
access to Whois data that they shouldn’t have? This “interim”
solution will almost certainly become a permanent one. If we
have learned anything about how icANN works.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Any sincere believers in model 2b should
accept reality and say let’s do Model 3 in the short term and
then work out a viable certification system long term.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Right now, let us cohere behind model 3 it
is both the right solution and our strongest bargaining
position heading into the future.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. Milton L. Mueller<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Professor, School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>