[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models

[Stephanie Perrin]

I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been 
submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not 
happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and 
more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be 
a long time before this is over....

We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While 
option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.

cheers SP

On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Thanks Rafik
>
> I’m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the 
> comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>
> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement. 
> It sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if 
> Stephanie has a 15-page document coming I’d like to make sure we’re 
> being consistent in our messaging.
>
> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I’ll write 
> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on 
> the table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>
> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for 
>> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act 
>> quickly within this weekend .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu 
>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>> Cc:
>>
>>     I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on
>>     the 12 January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>
>>     Principles
>>
>>     Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
>>     fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all
>>     three is acceptable to the NCSG.
>>
>>     1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission.
>>     That is, the data that is collected and the data that are
>>     published must directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's
>>     mission as defined in Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any
>>     definition of Whois purpose that is based on the way people
>>     happen to make use of data that can be accessed indiscriminately
>>     in a public directory. The fact that certain people currently use
>>     Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois is
>>     to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to
>>     anyone who wants it for any reason.
>>
>>     2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform
>>     and not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide
>>     globalized governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be
>>     globally compatible and coordinated. Any solution that involves
>>     fragmenting the policies and practices of Whois along
>>     jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>
>>     3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new
>>     criteria for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months.
>>     We would strongly resist throwing the community into a hopeless
>>     rush to come up with entirely new policies, standards and
>>     practices involving tiered access to data, and we do not want
>>     ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to community
>>     review and approval.
>>
>>     Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the
>>     only viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly
>>     displayed to that which is required for maintaining the
>>     stability, security and resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be
>>     applied across the board, and would be presumptively legal
>>     regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar, registry or
>>     registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
>>     process for gaining access to additional information.
>>
>>     There is room for discussion about how much data could be
>>     publicly displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission.
>>     E.g., it may be within ICANN's mission to include additional data
>>     in the public record, such as an email address for the technical
>>     contact and even possibly the name of the registrant.
>>
>>     The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is
>>     completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party
>>     requestor is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is
>>     such access justified by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>
>>     Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of
>>     criteria and processes were devised, but it simply is not
>>     feasible for such a certification program to be developed in 3
>>     months. A certification program thrown together in a rush poses
>>     huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures, and a legal challenge
>>     to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals affected.
>>
>>     Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>
>>     Professor, School of Public Policy
>>
>>     Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/ad3973de/attachment.htm>