ICANN Response to Art 29 WP

Fri Apr 13 07:30:20 EEST 2018

Yes - the inclusion of that last bullet is particularly egregious, when you
consider that anti-fake news laws are used as a hammer around the
world to silence
critical journalists
<https://cpj.org/reports/2017/12/journalists-prison-jail-record-number-turkey-china-egypt.php>.
Very disturbing to see them pointing to that as something they feel driven
to help facilitate.

The idea of them suing for a moratorium is also pretty ludicrous. There was
a two year implementation period - whose fault is it that this was left to
the last minute?

Michael

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Collin Kurre <collin at article19.org> wrote:

> This is a topic that has the potential to draw the attention of actors
> with little to no knowledge about ICANN’s structure and remit. With that in
> mind, one of the (many) things that I find problematic about this response
> the imprecision in language, particularly in the bulleted list
> of “potentially adverse scenarios”.
>
> Take the last point for example: that a fragmented WHOIS would “make it
> significantly harder to identify fake news and impact the ability to take
> action against bad actors.” Who is the agent of action here, real or
> perceived? What is the role of WHOIS and ICANN in determining or rectifying
> fake news? The lack of clarity could easily be interpreted as an invitation
> to actors seeking to leverage the DNS for content regulation.
>
> Disappointing to see such a knee-jerk response to Article 29’s thorough
> contribution.
>
> Best,
> Collin Kurre
>
> On Apr 12, 2018, at 11:06 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> And here is ICANN's response to Article 29 WP.
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> ----
>
>
>
>
> Please see our most recent announcement
> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en> regarding the
> letter
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr18-en.pdf> from
> the Article 29 Working Party. The letter was published on our main
> Correspondence page <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence>,
> and linked to our Data Protection/Privacy page
> <https://www.icann.org/dataprotectionprivacy>.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------
>
>
>
> *ICANN Receives Data Protection/Privacy Guidance from Article 29 Working
> Party*
>
> LOS ANGELES – 12 April 2018 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> and Numbers ("ICANN") today announced that it has received a letter from
> the Article 29 Working Party (WP29)
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr18-en.pdf>
> [PDF, 400 KB] that provides guidance on the European Union's General Data
> Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its impact on the collection, retention
> and publication of domain name registration data and the WHOIS system.
> ICANN organization’s response to the letter from the Article 29 Working
> Party will be published shortly here
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence>.
>
>
>
> “We appreciate the guidance provided by the Article 29 Working Party on
> this important issue and have accepted an invitation to meet with the WP29
> Technology Subgroup in Brussels on 23 April for further discussions,” said
> Göran Marby, ICANN president and CEO. “However, we are disappointed that
> the letter does not mention our request for a moratorium on enforcement of
> the law until we implement a model. Without a moratorium on enforcement,
> WHOIS will become fragmented and we must take steps to mitigate this issue.
> As such, we are studying all available remedies, including legal action in
> Europe to clarify our ability to continue to properly coordinate this
> important global information resource. We will provide more information in
> the coming days.”
>
>
>
> A moratorium on enforcement action by DPAs would potentially allow for the
> introduction of an agreed-upon accreditation model and for the registries
> and registrars to implement the accreditation model in conjunction with the
> measures in the agreed final interim compliance model. It will also allow
> for reconciliation between the advice ICANN has received from its
> Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and the Article 29 Working Party.
> Unless there is a moratorium, we may no longer be able to give instructions
> to the contracted parties through our agreements to maintain WHOIS. Without
> resolution of these issues, the WHOIS system will become fragmented until
> the interim compliance model and the accreditation model are implemented.
>
>
>
> A fragmented WHOIS would no longer employ a common framework for generic
> top-level domain (gTLD) registration directory services. Registries and
> registrars would likely implement varying levels of access to data
> depending on their interpretations of the law.
>
> “In parallel, we will carefully consider this advice, along with all of
> the input we have received from the multistakeholder community, before
> making changes to the current iteration of the proposed interim model
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-compliance-interim-model-08mar18-en.pdf>,”
> Marby continued. “As a part of this, we will explore all options as we
> continue dialogues with DPAs and the interested parties that comprise the
> multistakeholder community.”
>
>
>
> It’s important to balance the right to privacy with the need for
> information. While ICANN recognizes the importance of the GDPR and its goal
> of protecting personal data, parts of the ICANN community have noted the
> negative impact of a fragmented WHOIS. For example, it will hinder the
> ability of law enforcement to get important information and the anti-spam
> community to help ensure the Internet protects end-users. It will also:
>
>    - Protect the identity of criminals who may register hundreds of
>    domain names specifically for use in cyberattacks;
>    - Hamper the ability of consumer protection agencies who track the
>    traffic patterns of illicit businesses;
>    - Stymie trademark holders from protecting intellectual property; and
>    - Make it significantly harder to identify fake news and impact the
>    ability to take action against bad actors.
>
>
>
> These are just a few examples from a long list of potentially adverse
> scenarios.
>
> Marby also requested that the DPAs include ICANN in any proceedings
> relating to WHOIS, and asks that it be included in all discussions and
> actions of the privacy regulators with the other WHOIS data controllers. He
> also said that ICANN org is continuing its efforts to prepare for
> implementation of a new model. Additional information on ICANN’s data
> protection/privacy activities, including legal analyses, proposed
> compliance models, and community feedback is published here
> <https://www.icann.org/dataprotectionprivacy>.
>
>
>
> We encourage the community to provide feedback and continue our dialogues
> on future activities. You may share your views with us via email at
> gdpr at icann.org.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> So-ac-sg-cleaders mailing list
> So-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180413/aad97a1f/attachment.htm>