[Info] GDPR/Whois update

[James Gannon]

[Image result for head in sand]
In case it doesn’t translate into other cultures:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/head-in-the-sand


On 29 Jul 2018, at 20:24, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com<mailto:compsoftnet at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/b875c31a/attachment.htm>