<div dir="auto"><div>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"><br></div><div dir="auto"> 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"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards </div><div dir="auto">Peter <br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 8:12 PM Stephanie Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">1. Yes we knew it
would happen.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">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>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">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>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">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><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">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><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande"></font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="m_-3637860675019813858moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-07-28 11:12, Ayden Férdeline
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
This shines a spotlight on a real flaw in the EPDP’s Charter
(being the inclusion of ‘access').
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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><br>
</div>
<div>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><br>
</div>
<div>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><br>
</div>
<div>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><br>
</div>
<div>Ayden</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 28 Jul 2018, at 01:04, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="m_-3637860675019813858Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Hi all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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">https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps</a>. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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><br>
</div>
<div>Best Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rafik</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>