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

[farzaneh badii]

Hello Stephanie

Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which you
supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now. I
suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something
better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access
etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner
so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact
that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas
protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait!

I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would
like to know our positoon before the intersessional.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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>
> 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>
> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
> To: <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 listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/62900357/attachment.htm>