ICANN Response to Art 29 WP

Fri Apr 13 10:06:13 EEST 2018

Who within ICANN is taking the lead on this? The CEO must be getting
someone to do these drafts which are full of holes. You can make a bad
argument but it should be tight.
best

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I think we are all scratching our heads trying to figure out the strategy
> here Dorothy...it is certainly true that the Governmental Advisory
> Committee (GAC) continues to push for status quo, and obviously the
> business community including the intellectual property constituency...but
> at some point ICANN needs to wake up and smell the coffee.  I am busy
> working on our next letter to the Article 29 Working Party, with our
> reflections on recent proposals, and in response to their excellent
> letter.  Any suggestions would be welcome....I am wondering if a list of
> proposed questions to ICANN might be a good idea.  In the meantime, Michele
> Neylon of the Registrars Stakeholders Group has written an excellent blog
> that pretty much sums up the situation, available here
> https://blacknight.blog/game-over-for-public-whois-article-
> 29-gives-icann-the-advice-it-asked-for.html .
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> PS I agree with Colin and Michael that the bit about fake news is
> offensive, and will deal with it.  We included a fairly lengthy piece on
> protection of journalists and political speakers (as well as others) in our
> March letter but the idea that WHOIS actually protects against fake news is
> backwards and needs to be addressed.
> On 2018-04-13 08:45, dorothy g wrote:
>
> 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/20180413/855a5478/attachment.htm>