Whois/privacy and the SSAD

Tue Jan 18 07:10:43 EET 2022

Hey all,

We are currently discussing the SSAD Governmental Accreditation
process/model at the policy committee meeting and - considering the current
discussions taking place here on the thread and among our councilors and
EPDP member - i wanted to suggest for us to start drafting a call raising
some of our concerns about the process and so on.

Would it be ok for all of you? I understand when Stephanie raises questions
pertaining to the relevance of such central process, but Farzaneh and
others also have highly concerning points about (a) costs and (b) dynamics
with law enforcement authorities in more problematic governments and
regimes.

Last question is if anyone else would like to help me draft this statement
and who do you think we should be directing this one too - just the board ?
Board and Org ?

Best,
Bruna

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 9:43 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Thanks for sharing Milton.
>
> Procedurally, personally I think there are too many unknowns to risk
> starting working on a supplemental recommendation before a board decision
> and report to the GNSO council. We need at least the Operational Design
> Assessment (ODA) expected to be published in February for us to get a bit
> more details.
>
> On the substance, my understanding is that there are two aspects to the
> system. Validating the requestors (accreditation) and validating the
> requests for correctness (triage). You say you're "afraid that
> accreditation will confer some kind of de facto expectation or right to
> disclosure, and to mass, automated requests". As I understand it, the
> current policy doesn't confer this expectation. Is your fear therefore that
> if the EPDP group is consulted for either a supplemental recommendation or
> modification of the recommendation, text might be added which confers such
> expectations?
> Usually, validation of the requestor is done before or as part of the
> triage process of a request. How do you envision the whole process working
> practically without the validation of the requestors bit?
>
> Tomslin
> @Twitter: https://twitter.com/tomsleen
> @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 07:04, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> Greetings all and happy new year.
>> As one of your representatives on the EPDP dealing with Whois and
>> privacy, I want to inform you of the latest development.
>>
>> You will remember that a lot of sensitive domain name registration data
>> is now redacted (hidden), because ICANN had to come into compliance with
>> GDPR. The SSAD (Standardized System of Access and Disclosure) was an
>> elaborate mechanism developed by the EPDP to allow people who want to see
>> the hidden data to request its disclosure. The proposed SSAD had an
>> elaborate mechanism for accrediting users of the system, including a
>> process for each national government to accredit its own law enforcement
>> and government agencies.
>>
>> ICANN Org has done a study of the costs of the proposed SSAD and
>> estimates that it will be very expensive and will take a long time to
>> implement. The ICANN board has indicated that it may not approve the SSAD
>> recommendation because of these problems.
>>
>> So now we are faced with a question about what to do next.
>>
>> There are basically two options being presented to us:
>>
>>    1. Let the ICANN Board formally refuse to adopt the recommendation,
>>    tell us what's wrong with it, and then let the Council and the EPDP adopt a
>>    supplemental recommendation that fixes the problems
>>    2. Re-convene the EPDP and work out its own modification of the
>>    recommendation.
>>
>> I've attached a more detailed analysis of the options that the ICANN
>> staff circulated today. I have my own opinion about this - I think the SSAD
>> does need to be simplified and agree with the staff's concerns about its
>> complexity and cost. But I am not sure what is the best way procedurally to
>> fix this problem. Hope we can discuss this as a SG and reach a unified
>> position.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor
>>
>> School of Public Policy
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>> Internet Governance Project <https://internetgovernance.org>
>>
>>
>>

-- 

*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>

Visiting Researcher (Gastwissenschaftlerin) | Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
für Sozialforschung (WZB) <https://wzb.eu/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.martinsdossantos at wzb.eu <bruna.martinsdossantos at wzb.eu>* and
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20220118/e18aa5c6/attachment.htm>