<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">while I checked the 3 models, I am not familiar with the eco model or comment and so making any judgment hard. is it similar to one of the models or something totally different proposal?</div><div class="gmail_extra">maybe as context, we should recall that those models are supposed to be interim solutions. One risk with model 2b or a similar (eco?) is what French calls "le temporaire qui dure", a lasting temporary. It means having a workaround that will become de facto the solution with all its drawbacks and we won't have a real say in the process such accreditation or certification (we can learn from the current discussion on implementing of PPSAI and how staff views differ from the policy).</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">let's think in practical fashion here:</div><div class="gmail_extra">- we got a deadline and need to submit a comment</div><div class="gmail_extra">- the discussion is still continuing e.g. webinar this week and beyond</div><div class="gmail_extra">- there are calls for extension by BC and IPC because they want to propose more models beyond the 3 tabled.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I guess one approach is to have the comment saying that the model 3 to meet the current deadline because its restrictions is a more safe solution till we move for a restrictive layered option (2b or eco model) after a real community involvement and discussion. Having a model 3 used is a real ncentive for everyone to work on a long time solution acknowledging all concerns from the different parties instead of tricking us to accept an ill-designed option. the document made by Stephanie is a starting point for us to work on the details in coming months.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Rafik</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-01-29 1:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span>:<br><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 am sorry I let you
          down.  To be frank, the discussion on the main list was all
          over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to be
          trashed by folks not following these matters was pretty
          minimal.  However, I have had a complete meltdown with my
          computer and my ISP, which slowed me down enormously, and
          there was no room for error.</font></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Here are a few
          compromise positions:</font></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">1.  I can summarize at
          the end of the analysis of the different positions, the
          various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did not go
          into it.</font></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">2.  I can add a more
          thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, the IP lawyer
          ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues
          successfully.</font></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">3.  I can discuss the
          data commissioner's expressed views on these matters.  There
          will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting off of
          access for cyber investigators.  IF you have any ideas on how
          to square that circle, I am all ears.  It is a big
          problem....while I can be accused of caving in to a moderate
          position because I have been both a govt policy/legislative
          wonk and an exec in a privacy commissioner's office, I think
          you have to acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting
          off law enforcement in back rooms.  If we want to be taken
          seriously, we have to acknowledge there is a problem. (it is
          of course their fault there is a problem, but that is another
          narrative....)</font></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I am also very happy
          saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.  But if you
          want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 3,
          please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the
          other day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled
          them into models. COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions
          of other models etc are welcome.</font></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">SO I think we can say
          of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, and our
          favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.  Strategically, and
          bearing in mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and
          this is an interim measure, supporting the registrars seems to
          me a good idea, particularly when they have gone to the work
          and expense they have to produce an excellent proposal.<br>
        </font></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Have to go drop  the
          dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in LA or
          tomorrow morning at breakfast?</font></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers Steph</font></font><br>
    </p><div><div class="h5">
    <div class="m_-8127500588600439297moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I tell you what is
          sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late and we
          relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law
          Enforcement be viewed as legitimate force globally and you
          know where I am from. Does Eco model address my worry?</div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
        <div>
          <div class="m_-8127500588600439297gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM,
          Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.<wbr>utoronto.ca</a>></span>
          wrote:<br>
          <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">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>
                <div class="m_-8127500588600439297h5">
                  <div class="m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753moz-cite-prefix">On
                    2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:<br>
                  </div>
                  <blockquote type="cite">
                    <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" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoront<wbr>o.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_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_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_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_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">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>>
                                  wrote:</div>
                                <blockquote class="m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_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">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">NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu</a><wbr>>
                                        <br>
                                        Cc: <br>
                                        <br type="attribution">
                                        <blockquote class="m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_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_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_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_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
                              <pre class="m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936moz-quote-pre">______________________________<wbr>_________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a class="m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a class="m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
                            </blockquote>
                          </div>
                          ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
                          NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
                          <a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
                          <a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
                        </blockquote>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                    <div dir="ltr">-- <br>
                    </div>
                    <div class="m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
                      <div dir="ltr">
                        <div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </div></div></div>

<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>