<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
They are not working with the EDPB, they are doing what they have done for 10 years and both ignoring their inputs and asking and assuming they will do things that they cannot (They cannot and will not tell ICANN exactly what to do_<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 29 Jul 2018, at 19:36, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <<a href="mailto:compsoftnet@GMAIL.COM" class="">compsoftnet@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="auto" class="">
<div class="">Hi Stephanie, would ICANN even consider the alternate model as they are currently working with the EDPB to figure things out. Top down scenario... </div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""> I'm wondering how EPDP output would be useful. Maybe it's just to vet the temporary specifications and ICANN thought. </div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Regards </div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Peter <br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="">On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 8:12 PM Stephanie Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" class="">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<p class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Lucida Grande" class="">1. Yes we knew it would happen.</font></font></p>
<p class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Lucida Grande" class="">2. They have been working on it since last summer, and have been popping out new models. I ti s hard to keep up, frankly.
<br class="">
</font></font></p>
<p class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Lucida Grande" class="">3. To be fair to all parties, the part of the interim spec which says that contracted parties must provide reasonable access can hardly be avoided under the law. The point where we diverge
is where that reasonable access becomes a public disclosure instrument that is "unified" (the term they really want is "uniform", as I pointed out in Panama on the panel on this subject, but the data protection laws do not provide for that.
<br class="">
</font></font></p>
<p class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Lucida Grande" class="">4. I think we need to do a brief comment on access issues, raising all the pertinent issues. I am working on the annotated version of the 63 page document, but have been tied up in the
WHOIS review team meeting, back at it again.</font></font></p>
<p class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Lucida Grande" class="">5. We need to propose an alternate model. This is not a community process. I think the GNSO should discuss this at the next meeting. They have lost control of this process.</font></font></p>
<p class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Lucida Grande" class="">Stephanie<br class="">
</font></font></p>
<p class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Lucida Grande" class=""></font></font><br class="">
</p>
<div class="m_-3637860675019813858moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-07-28 11:12, Ayden Férdeline wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">This shines a spotlight on a real flaw in the EPDP’s Charter (being the inclusion of ‘access').
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">ICANN org is clearly engaged in a parallel process seeking “clarity” from the various Data Protection Authorities on how to proceed here. And I think it’s plausible that the ICANN Board will issue a second Temporary Specification once they have
enough “clarity” from the Data Protection Authorities, because why wouldn’t they?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Is ICANN org really shopping this unified access model around, and then going to allow the community to develop something radically different as a part of the EPDP? It makes sense to go with the model that the GDPR’s enforcement bodies - the DPAs
- are comfortable with.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">But we knew this would happen. This was why the NCSG was opposed to the development of an access model being included in the EPDP’s scope. We thought it would be a more effective use of the EPDP team’s time and resources to not address this question
until such time as ICANN org had received and shared with the community the advice it has received from the Data Protection Authorities, as their recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will almost certainly be followed by ICANN anyway.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Given this, it’s time we engage with the unified access model. There were good reasons not to in the past, but it isn’t going away.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Ayden</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 28 Jul 2018, at 01:04, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="m_-3637860675019813858Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Hi all,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">You can find here another blog post from ICANN CEO on activities around GDPR and Whois in ICANN
<a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps</a>. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">It is compiling previous updates but I am also wondering if there is anything said between lines like the Uniform Access Model as ICANN org seems to continue in that path even with the start of EPDP process or the current temporary specification
will be just confirmed as is or amended.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best Regards,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Rafik</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</body>
</html>