ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation

Tue Jan 12 18:10:56 EET 2021

+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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210112/76b6648f/attachment.htm>