ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation

Stephanie E Perrin stephanie at DIGITALDISCRETION.CA
Sun Feb 28 11:49:40 EET 2021


I will volunteer to draft this thing.  Fair warning though, I think we 
have to comment on the fact that every time we make a concession on 
something and compromise, at the next stage of the game, the other side 
re-litigates old issues.  There are also a number of hardy perennials in 
the EPDP combat zone that just keep coming back despite the agreed 
policy.....such as the fact that we are aiming for a harmonized policy, 
not just compliance with GDPR in regions where it's application is 
incontestable.  A question of bargaining in good faith, one might say, 
continues to haunt this work.

All help gratefully received.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2021-02-28 3:45 a.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> 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 
> <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 
> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:pileleji at jokkolabs.co>> wrote:
>
>             +1
>
>             On Tuesday, January 12, 2021, Bruna Martins dos Santos
>             <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto: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
>                 <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 <mailto: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
>                     <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>                     *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 3:51 PM
>                     *To:* Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca
>                     <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>>;
>                     NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>                     <mailto: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
>                     <mailto: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
>                     <mailto: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
>                     <mailto: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
>                     <mailto: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
>                         <mailto: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
>                         <mailto: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
>                             <mailto: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 <mailto:bruna at dataprivacybr.org> and
>     bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210228/af8ef5d4/attachment.htm>


More information about the Ncsg-discuss mailing list