<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Well I am sorry that I
did not get the comment in as well. There is a lot to read
and I have read it (unlike many). WE need to know where the
opposition is coming from.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">The ECO comments have
been out there a while, and they deal with the models. There
is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's
position. Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Ignoring the reality
that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in my view,
not a thoughtful position to take. I can attempt to reword it
if you point me to precisely what is sticking in your
throats. We want layered access....a failure to support
layered access at this point in time will set us back years,
we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I am happy to send my
comments in myself if you don't support them. I think they
are well informed and realistic. I think Option 3 was thrown
out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">let me know.....</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers Steph</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<div dir="auto">Hello Stephanie </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Is eco model in the models that offered by
Icann? Is it model 2b which you supported in the doc you sent
us? If not then we cannot support it now. I suggest going for
the highest protection now until we work out something better.
You can always go down from highest protection to layered
access etc but for now and since we don't have much time to
reach consensus I think we can stick to model 3. I wish you
had sent us your document sooner so that we could work on it.
Also your argument for not supporting model 3 in the document
is not really based on substance it's based on the fact that
it won't get support in the community. There is a May
deadline. Community can come up with consensus after the
deadline on another leas protective model. but ICANN org
can't wait! <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline
is tomorrow and we would like to know our positoon before the
intersessional.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <<a
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
moz-do-not-send="true">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">I will try
to get the revised comments on the models that have
been submitted in before I run for the plane at 2
EDT...but that may not happen. The legal analysis
will come next week, it is a lot harder and more
complex....but I want to get my questions on the
table. It will be a long time before this is
over....</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">We need to
endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.
While option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers SP</font></font><br>
</p>
</div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="m_6396244989369319936moz-cite-prefix">On
2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden Férdeline wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Thanks Rafik</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>I’m going to hold off on endorsing this for
24 hours until I read the comments currently being
drafted by Stephanie. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>To be clear, this is not to say that I do not
endorse this statement. It sounds logical to me and
consistent with our principles. But if Stephanie has a
15-page document coming I’d like to make sure we’re
being consistent in our messaging. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Of course, being so close to the final day for
submissions, I’ll write again on-list tomorrow in the
absence of any other statements being on the table, as
we cannot miss this submission deadline. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes, Ayden</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div
id="m_6396244989369319936protonmail_mobile_signature_block">Sent
from ProtonMail Mobile</div>
<div> <br>
<div>
<div> <br>
</div>
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <<a
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote
class="m_6396244989369319936protonmail_quote"
type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi all,
<div dir="auto"> <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">We got a comment for the GDPR
compliance model. The deadline for submission
ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday.
We need act quickly within this weekend .</div>
<div dir="auto"> <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best,</div>
<div dir="auto"> <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Rafik </div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded
message ---------- <br>
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <<a
href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">milton@gatech.edu</a>>
<br>
Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM <br>
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois
compliance models <br>
To: <<a
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu</a>>
<br>
Cc: <br>
<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="m_6396244989369319936quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"
lang="EN-US">
<div
class="m_6396244989369319936m_-2216294355849967392WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I offer the
following as a first draft of the NCSG
position on the 12 January 2018 call
for comments released by ICANN org. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Principles </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our evaluation of
the models offered by ICANN are based
on three fundamental principles. No
model that fails to conform to all
three is acceptable to the NCSG. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. The purpose of
whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's
mission. That is, the data that is
collected and the data that are
published must directly and
demonstrably contribute to ICANN's
mission as defined in Article 1 of its
new bylaws. We reject any definition
of Whois purpose that is based on the
way people happen to make use of data
that can be accessed indiscriminately
in a public directory. The fact that
certain people currently use Whois for
any purpose does not mean that the
purpose of Whois is to provide thick
data about the domain and its
registrant to anyone who wants it for
any reason. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Whois service,
like the DNS itself, should be
globally uniform and not vary by
jurisdiction. ICANN was created to
provide globalized governance of the
DNS so that it would continue to be
globally compatible and coordinated.
Any solution that involves fragmenting
the policies and practices of Whois
along jurisdictional lines is not
desirable. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. No tiered access
solution that involves establishing
new criteria for access can feasibly
be created in the next 3 months. We
would strongly resist throwing the
community into a hopeless rush to come
up with entirely new policies,
standards and practices involving
tiered access to data, and we do not
want ICANN staff to invent a policy
that is not subject to community
review and approval. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Based on these
three principles, we believe that
Model 3 is the only viable option
available. Model 3 minimizes the data
publicly displayed to that which is
required for maintaining the
stability, security and resiliency of
the DNS. Model 3 could be applied
across the board, and would be
presumptively legal regardless of
which jurisdiction the registrar,
registry or registrant are in. And
Model 3 relies on established legal
due process for gaining access to
additional information. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is room for
discussion about how much data could
be publicly displayed under Model 3
consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g.,
it may be within ICANN's mission to
include additional data in the public
record, such as an email address for
the technical contact and even
possibly the name of the registrant. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The process of
gaining access to additional data in
Model 1 is completely unacceptable.
Self-certification by any third party
requestor is, we believe, not
compliant with GDPR nor does is such
access justified by the purpose of
Whois or ICANN's mission. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Model 2 might
possibly be acceptable if an suitable
set of criteria and processes were
devised, but it simply is not feasible
for such a certification program to be
developed in 3 months. A certification
program thrown together in a rush
poses huge risks for loopholes, poor
procedures, and a legal challenge to
ICANN, either from DPAs or from
individuals affected. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. Milton L.
Mueller </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Professor, School
of Public Policy </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Georgia Institute
of Technology </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_6396244989369319936mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="m_6396244989369319936moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a class="m_6396244989369319936moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a class="m_6396244989369319936moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">-- <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>