ICANN Response to Art 29 WP

Fri Apr 13 07:45:30 EEST 2018

They have well-qualified people on the staff. It seems they are not
leveraging their resources or the good will of the stakeholder groups. For
example, Stephanie has given excellent analysis. Perhaps there is something
going on here, a wider power play that we do not grasp?
best

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Michael Karanicolas <
mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20180413/0d3e9290/attachment.htm>