ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation

Sun Feb 28 03:45:50 EET 2021

Thank you Bruna. Nice work!

In a similar vein and more on SSAD, I would like to remind members that
there is an open Public Comment proceeding seeking input on the final
recommendations that relate to SSAD which closes in 30 days. We still do
not have any volunteers to draft the comment.

The announcement is here >>
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-2-policy-recs-board-2021-02-08-en
And the draft comment is here >>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QAUa2nT2a9YGGhK0r603EJCXfa58elXd9kPh3DH0DrU/edit?usp=sharing

Regards,
Tomslin

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 07:28, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Hope this email finds you all well and safe!
>
> I'm writing to let you know that I have just received a response from the
> ICANN CEO to our communication re. SSAD.
>
> Best regards,
> Bruna
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:02 PM Kristi Hoffmaster <
> kristi.hoffmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Please include this - crucial:
>>
>>
>> 1. Could you please clarify in what ways the SSAD could be instrumental
>> for stopping and preventing the dissemination of illegal content and in
>> order to avoid related societal harms ?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 6:11 PM Poncelet Jokkolabs Banjul <
>> pileleji at jokkolabs.co> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> First of all, thank you very much for the comments on this thread. As
>>>> suggested, I took the liberty of taking Sam's comments and shaping into a
>>>> letter to the ICANN Board and CEO on this topic.
>>>>
>>>> The darft can be found here -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mmax62EkxSRgr8AMi8jqnNXlP36cjRdfqFy6gYrmnPY/edit
>>>> - and I would like to invite you all to add your comments and suggestions
>>>> to it.
>>>>
>>>> Considering this letter is about a communication issued by ICANN Org to
>>>> the EPDB in December, I would say it's good for us to send it maybe next
>>>> week. But, as usual, I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter as
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Bruna
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:56 PM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Milton, the comments are in the public domain and the NCSG is free to
>>>>> use them as they see fit. Thanks for the support.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 3:51 PM
>>>>> *To:* Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>> *Subject:* RE: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a great comment, Sam, why don’t NCSG officers just copy and
>>>>> paste them into an emailed letter to the CEO and Board?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Sam
>>>>> Lanfranco
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 2:22 PM
>>>>> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand the “*ICANN org Comments on the Recommendations
>>>>> 01/2020 on Measures That Supplement Transfer Tools  to Ensure Compliance
>>>>> With  the  EU Level  of Protection of Personal Data*”, they deal
>>>>> primarily with the transfer of data between regulatory jurisdictions and
>>>>> the processes necessary to meet a strict interpretation of the GDPR’s
>>>>> international data transfer requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This has absolutely nothing to do with “…*stopping and preventing the
>>>>> dissemination of illegal content and in order to avoid related societal
>>>>> harms*.” (*Comments: p. 2*) except in so far as legitimate requests
>>>>> by legal authorities may be related to investigations around such matters.
>>>>> Given that such matters reside outside ICANN’s remit, ICANN org should be
>>>>> asked to expunge the phrase from its position on transfer tool compliance
>>>>> with the EU’s personal data protections.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, I have a couple of questions in areas that are not clear to
>>>>> me. The *Comments* say that the proposed SSAD model would introduce *“…a
>>>>> centralized process for managing access requests and placing ICANN org in
>>>>> the middle of this process*.” They go on to say “*ICANN org or its
>>>>> designee(s) would manage a system for the intake of requests for data and
>>>>> would route these requests to the registrar or registry operator for a
>>>>> response*.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not clear if, in one way or another, ICANN would be the central
>>>>> clearing house for dealing with such requests, and it is not clear to whom “
>>>>> *designee(s*)” refers to.  My question is whether an ICANN-centric
>>>>> clearing house is the proper solution here, or whether a less centralized
>>>>> multilateral agreed upon set of principles (and processes) would better
>>>>> serve the intended objectives? Also, any transfer involves at least two
>>>>> national jurisdictions, so a rogue recipient state’s behavior could be
>>>>> blocked by a sending state in compliance with agreed principles and
>>>>> processes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, is there an issue of who decides whether an inter-state
>>>>> request is legitimate?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam Lanfranco
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Stephanie
>>>>> Perrin
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 10:33 AM
>>>>> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for raising this Farzi, i will confess that i was goofing off
>>>>> at Christmas and totally missed this letter.  I will raise it at the next
>>>>> EPDP meeting, and I think this ought to be raised at Council as well.  I
>>>>> should have raised it at the meeting yesterday of the small team looking at
>>>>> the other SSAD response (letter from the Board) even if it is a mite off
>>>>> topic there....this is a real  howler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 21:03, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Farzaneh and Bruna. Could easily have flown under the radar
>>>>> and forgotten after Christmas. This is certainly an important matter. Looks
>>>>> typical in its language: putting various kinds of processing as matters of
>>>>> "necessity" without looking into purpose and context of such processing.
>>>>> ICANN is no "surveillance capitalist," but precisely if it sticks to its
>>>>> narrow mandate and to appropriately, narrowly designed processing, it will
>>>>> also steer clear of any form of trouble with (most) DPAs and their related
>>>>> statutes. Now, if it starts giving in to pressures by certain interests to
>>>>> stop the "social harm" of fake gucci bags (hmm...), well, we get that kind
>>>>> of letter, I suppose.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be happy to help on the matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a nice day!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:27 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you so much for raising this here Farz.  I will definitely
>>>>> mention this topic when I have my next interaction with Goran.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> About the Content Moderation part, I agree with you that this topic
>>>>> might be absolutely out of the scope of the SSAD and ICANN as well. And
>>>>> this has been a point this community has raised before - more than just
>>>>> once and about Whois and CoMo. I also happen to agree that the definitions
>>>>> of Illegal content and content related to societal harm are rather open and
>>>>> problematic for the SSAD - or for many other discussions as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we work on a letter - to the Board, the EPDB or both - reviving
>>>>> our arguments about Whois and Content moderation and send it once again ?
>>>>> Are there any volunteers who would like help me with this ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Bruna
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:00 PM farzaneh badii <
>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In my spare time, I got to read ICANN's letter dated 21 December 2020
>>>>> to EDPB about compliance with GDPR.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-org-comments-edpb-recs-21dec20-en.pdf
>>>>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2Ficann-org-comments-edpb-recs-21dec20-en.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40GATECH.EDU%7C120fb15e918b4593cbcd08d8b40ab7f4%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637457305705415204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OYD%2F%2FPaI8UbF69q4aee3gMjUtVvIxcLENBr%2Fzsp%2F%2BRQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There was one alarming issue raised in this letter, and since the
>>>>> Internet community has been mentioned, I think we should at least ask Bruna
>>>>> to raise it with the CEO next time she talks to him. I know we
>>>>> haven't drafted other  important comments but I haven't followed EPDP so
>>>>> will leave that to the members.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> P.2: "The SSAD is therefore instrumental for stopping and preventing
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> *dissemination of illegal content and in order to avoid related
>>>>> societal harm*s". This is alarming because the SSAD is serving
>>>>> ICANN's mission which has nothing to do with the regulation of illegal
>>>>> content and that is outside of its mission. I don't know what they mean by
>>>>> societal harm. We have many times told ICANN not to be careless when it
>>>>> comes to the limited function of WHOIS and relate it to content regulation.
>>>>> They said they wouldn't. But here they are definitely going into those
>>>>> territories.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are other matters in the letter as well but I haven't had the
>>>>> time to read closely, for example they are talking about "thick WHOIS" not
>>>>> happening because of the strict international transfer. I am not sure where
>>>>> epdp is at with discussing thick whois. Can we even have it in place?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>>
>>>>> @boomartins
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>
>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>> @boomartins
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Poncelet O. Ileleji*
>>> *Jokkolabs Banjul -  Lead*
>>> *Sait Matty Road, Bakau, Adjacent to Swedish Consulate*
>>> *KMC, The Gambia*
>>> *P O Box 4496 Bakau,KMC, The Gambia*
>>> *Skype: pons_utd*
>>> *Tel Direct Office: +220 4495115*
>>>
>>> *Tel Mobile/Whatsapp: +220 9912508*
>>> *www.jokkolabs.net* <http://www.jokkolabs.co>
>>>
>>> *LinkedIn: Jokkolabs Banjul*
>>> *Facebook: Jokkolabs Banjul*
>>> *Twitter: @jklBanjul*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>> Kristi Hoffmaster
>> Webmaster - SPX Corporation Owner - Shop Hoffmaster
>>
>> Day mobile (980) 215-3296 Mobile (864) 237-1766
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>
> Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research
> <https://www.dataprivacybr.org/en/>
>
> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
> Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>
>
> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
> bruna.martinsantos
> bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210228/d6fde4d3/attachment.htm>