<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Stephanie,<br>
I support your comments and want to share why inclusion of as much
of your work as possible in our NCSG comments is critical at this
important moment in time.<br>
<br>
1. You analyze the three models. ICANN needs this since everyone
will be coming in advocating for "their model," but not necessarily
analyzing all three (and certainly not from our NCSG perspective). <br>
<br>
2. You point out that ICANN's underlying assumption for this
GDRP-3-Models-Proceeding is wrong. On page 5 of the comments, under
Approach, you write: "... it
is stated that the goal is to maintain the existing WHOIS to the
greatest extent possible. <b> We think the WHOIS has been broken
for
some years, and do not wish to maintain it."This is a critical
insight. </b>The IPC and law enforcement want us to stay on the
current path. They have grown accustomed to access to information
that the GDRP and other data protection laws around the world say
they are not entitled to. We cannot stay on the same path. Tx for
calling it out so clearly.<br>
<br>
3. You assess the complexities of the situation with the knowledge
and background as someone deeply involved in the Canadian data
protection law creation and now the European data protection
commissioners and new GDPR rules. This is very important as ICANN's
choices are complicated. <br>
<br>
Here's to merging the best of all the drafted comments!<br>
Best, Kathy<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/28/2018 10:45 PM, Stephanie Perrin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:86103707-eee2-3c7c-c3a8-e671bc7f275d@mail.utoronto.ca"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>