[PC-NCSG] possible motion to the GNSO re the WHOIS conflicts with law procedure?
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Thu Jul 9 21:06:13 EEST 2015
Hi folks,
I believe you have heard me rant about the ridiculous nature of the
discussions we are having in the WHOIS conflicts with law procedure
group (IAG volunteers)
https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/WHOIS+and+national+law+conflicts+IAG+Home
Jamie Headland has circulated a draft report (attached), which he would
like us to agree on at the next meeting on Monday. Chris Wilkinson is
objecting, claiming the policy should be revised/thrown out. James G
has sent the helpful proposal listed in the thread below, but
unfortunately this does not help to resolve the problem with the
underlying policy. In my view, it would be timely and appropriate for
one of us to table a motion at the GNSO to revisit the policy, even
though I have just sent the following to the list:
Personally, I would agree with the recent Circle ID post by Mark
Jeftovic,
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150703_confessions_of_an_ex_opponent_of_whois_privacy/.
His recommendations seem to be useful in this discussion:
1. Any Whois Privacy Policy revisions should be tabled until the
entire Whois database is re-engineered as the next generation RDS.
2. That a guiding principle of any future Next Gen Whois / RDS
Working Groups should incorporate *legal due process* and
*end-user, (that is Registrant) control over their own data
records*, complete with automated mechanisms to alert
Registrants when inquiries are made into their records, what the
purpose of those inquiries are and allowing Registrants the
ability to withhold disclosure (except in cases of overt net
abuse or where a law enforcement agency is pursuing a legitimate
investigation subject to a valid warrant).
What does this group think of raising the matter to the GNSO? They are
likely to say wait for the WHOIS issues report, but in the meantime we
are papering over a large crack in the wall/foundation, and I hold out
no hope of seeing the WHOIS issues report settled anytime soon, nor the
appropriate PDPs struck and staffed in time to fix this issue.
Ideas welcome....
Steph.
.......Thread.......
All,
As someone who fundamentally disagrees with much of the current WHOIS
policy I still have to say that Jamie is correct here, the IAG has a
mandate, that mandate is to review the trigger procedure.
Our mandate is not to initiate policy development or review. We have 3
forks in the road at this point:
* We come to consensus on an updated trigger mechanism and issue a
final report that reflects that
* We do not come to consensus on an updates trigger mechanism and
issue a split final report that reflects that
* We agree amongst the members of the IAG that due to fundamental
disagreements that the IAG is unable to progress further and
recommend that we disband our efforts.
I would much prefer for us to work constructively, within our mandate,
to achieve either option 1 or 2 as determined by us, the community.
At a fundamental level I think we need to go back and assess our current
situation with our respective communities and return to Mondays call
with a position on the continuation of the valuable work that I think
the IAG is able to achieve.
We need to decide if we are going to move forward on the topic at hand,
and if the answer is yes then we need to have agreement from everyone
involved that we will work on the issue at hand for the IAG, regardless
of our issues with the underlying policy which many of us feel needs
serious modernisation.
-James Gannon
On 9 Jul 2015, at 18:07, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
<mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:
Thanks, Christopher. I invite you to review the scope and mission of
this IAG, available at
https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/WHOIS+and+national+law+conflicts+IAG+Home.
From what I can discern from your comments, you would like this group
to tackle issues that are or could be the subject of policy development.
As you know, there is the ongoing work of the EWG to develop a
replacement for WHOIS. The GNSO could decide to initiate a PDP to
address the policy underlying the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure. Regarding
your desire to restructure the GNSO, the GNSO is subject to regular
reviews.
All of this is to say that you and the community have multiple
opportunities to provide input into all of the subjects that are of
interest. But the purpose of this IAG is fairly narrow. It is limited by
the policy itself which calls for annual reviews of the Procedure. It
does not call for a review of the Procedure?s underlying policy, WHOIS,
or the GNSO. Those happen in other community fora. We hope you will
actively participate in those as well.
Best,
Jamie
Jamie Hedlund
VP, Strategic Programs
Global Domains Division
ICANN
+1.202.374.3969 (m)
+1.202.570.7125 (d)
jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 12:50
To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>>, Steve Crocker
<steve at shinkuro.com <mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>>, Fadi Chehade
<fadi.chehade at icann.org <mailto:fadi.chehade at icann.org>>, Cherine
Chalaby <cherine.chalaby at icann.org <mailto:cherine.chalaby at icann.org>>,
Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
<ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org
<mailto:john.jeffrey at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
Dear Jamie:Allow me, for a moment, to abstract totally from all subject
matter and any opinions in this regard, including my own.
Nevertheless, if ICANN staff consider that they are authorised to ignore
qualified public input simply on the grounds that it is "out of scope"
(determined by who?),
then you are well on the way to driving a large wedge between the
organisation and the community.
in other proximate and recent discussions the matter of accountability
and mutual confidence has been raised. I do not need to go into details.
But if your response is an example of the general attitude of ICANN
staff, then we - indeed - do have a problem. The resolution of which
could very well turn out to be far less favourable to the organisation
than that which would otherwise be necessary.
I invite you and your colleagues to give this issue your serious
consideration, soon.
Regards
Christopher
On 09 Jul 2015, at 17:47, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
<mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:
> Christopher,
>
> Thank you for your comments. As has been repeatedly discussed within
> the IAG, the scope of the work is limited to consideration of
> potential improvements to the existing WHOIS Conflicts Procedure. The
> existing WHOIS policy, the Procedure?s underlying Policy, adoption of
> globally, international best privacy practices, and the work of the
> EWG are all outside the scope of the IAG?s mandate. On our call on
> Monday it would be appropriate to discuss your point 1 below. As the
> remainder of your points are out of scope, I would recommend that they
> not be included in the agenda.
>
> Best,
> Jamie
>
> Jamie Hedlund
> VP, Strategic Programs
> Global Domains Division
> ICANN
> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
> jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
>
> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:21
> To: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>"
> <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>>
> Cc: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
> <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
>
> Good afternoon:
>
> I would be glad to thank the ICANN staff for their efforts in
> producing this draft report, were it not that a large part of the
> IAG-Whois discussion has been totally ignored.
> I think it is clear from the record that I could not possibly accept
> this draft as a basis for further discussion in future IAG conference
> calls.
>
> 1.On the basis of the discussion that I have heard in the conference
> calls and on the mailing list, I suggest that this is at most a
> minority report.
> Before proceeding any further, I would request a formal, nominative,
> poll of all the Members of the IAG (paragraph 4.2) as to whether this
> draft is or is not a minority report.
>
> 2.I request that the basic arguments that have been repeatedly
> expressed in the group as to why the present whois policy is not
> acceptable in large parts of the world,
> be recorded in detail for the benefit of the GNSO and the ICANN Board.
>
> 3.The report should clarify that what is still blithely described as
> the "underlying policy" (paragraph 1.1) is inconsistent with privacy
> law in large parts of the world.
>
> 4.With regard to the "stability and uniformity of the WHOIS system"
> (Paragraph 1.1) may I recall that I have proposed that either the
> burden of proof be reversed to the effect that ICANN must if necessary
> take the initiative to 'trigger' the procedure, or that ICANN should
> implement globally, international best practice privacy policy,
> world-wide. Until these options have been thoroughly discussed, I do
> not see on what basis ICANN staff can issue a draft report on the
> interim outcome of the IAG.
>
> 5.In this context, may I also request that the IAG - and our readers
> in the ICANN community - be informed, in our report, as to the
> procedure and schedule for the implementation of the recommendations
> of the EWG:
>
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ewg-recommends-a-replacement-for-whois
>
> As I understand it the system proposed by the EWG is aimed at:
>
> * Providing appropriate access to *accurate, reliable, and
> uniform* registration data.
> * Protecting the privacy of personal information.
> * *Enabling a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and
> maintaining* the ability to contact Registrants in order to
> guarantee *accountability*.
> * Supporting a framework to address issues involving Registrants
> including, but not limited to, consumer protection, investigation
> of cybercrime and intellectual property protection.
> * Providing an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement
> needs.
>
>
> Best regards to you all
>
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150709/e02da61a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IAG Draft Report v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 238380 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150709/e02da61a/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list