[Info] GDPR/Whois update

[Akinremi Peter Taiwo]

Thanks for the update, Jame. But am curious as to what they have done for
10 years as stated. Any pointers would help.

Regards
Peter

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 6:55 PM James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

> They are not working with the EDPB, they are doing what they have done for
> 10 years and both ignoring their inputs and asking and assuming they will
> do things that they cannot (They cannot and will not tell ICANN exactly
> what to do_
>
> On 29 Jul 2018, at 19:36, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephanie,  would ICANN even consider the alternate model as they are
> currently working with the EDPB to figure things out. Top down scenario...
>
>   I'm wondering how EPDP output would be useful.  Maybe it's just to vet
> the temporary specifications and ICANN thought.
>
> Regards
> Peter
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 8:12 PM Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> 1. Yes we knew it would happen.
>>
>> 2.  They have been working on it since last summer, and have been popping
>> out new models.  I ti s hard to keep up, frankly.
>>
>> 3.  To be fair to all parties, the part of the interim spec which says
>> that contracted parties must provide reasonable access can hardly be
>> avoided under the law.  The point where we diverge is where that reasonable
>> access becomes a public disclosure instrument that is "unified" (the term
>> they really want is "uniform", as I pointed out in Panama on the panel on
>> this subject, but the data protection laws do not provide for that.
>>
>> 4.  I think we need to do a brief comment on access issues, raising all
>> the pertinent issues.  I am working on the annotated version of the 63 page
>> document, but have been tied up in the WHOIS review team meeting, back at
>> it again.
>>
>> 5.  We need to propose an alternate model.  This is not a community
>> process.  I think the GNSO should discuss this at the next meeting.  They
>> have lost control of this process.
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>>
>> On 2018-07-28 11:12, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>
>> This shines a spotlight on a real flaw in the EPDP’s Charter (being the
>> inclusion of ‘access').
>>
>> ICANN org is clearly engaged in a parallel process seeking “clarity” from
>> the various Data Protection Authorities on how to proceed here. And I think
>> it’s plausible that the ICANN Board will issue a second Temporary
>> Specification once they have enough “clarity” from the Data Protection
>> Authorities, because why wouldn’t they?
>>
>> Is ICANN org really shopping this unified access model around, and then
>> going to allow the community to develop something radically different as a
>> part of the EPDP? It makes sense to go with the model that the GDPR’s
>> enforcement bodies - the DPAs - are comfortable with.
>>
>> But we knew this would happen. This was why the NCSG was opposed to the
>> development of an access model being included in the EPDP’s scope. We
>> thought it would be a more effective use of the EPDP team’s time and
>> resources to not address this question until such time as ICANN org had
>> received and shared with the community the advice it has received from the
>> Data Protection Authorities, as their recommendations, as the enforcement
>> bodies, are what will almost certainly be followed by ICANN anyway.
>>
>> Given this, it’s time we engage with the unified access model. There were
>> good reasons not to in the past, but it isn’t going away.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> On 28 Jul 2018, at 01:04, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> You can find here another blog post from ICANN CEO on activities around
>> GDPR and Whois in ICANN
>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps
>> .
>>
>> It is compiling previous updates but I am also wondering if there is
>> anything said between lines like the Uniform Access Model as ICANN org
>> seems to continue in that path even with the start of EPDP process or the
>> current temporary specification will be just confirmed as is or amended.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180729/50ccf117/attachment.htm>