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

Sun Jan 28 17:36:37 EET 2018

I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late
and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law Enforcement
be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I am from. Does
Eco model address my worry?

Farzaneh

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.  There is a lot
> to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to know where the
> opposition is coming from.
>
> The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the
> models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's
> position.  Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.
>
> Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in
> my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt to reword it if
> you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.  We want
> layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in time
> will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>
> I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.  I
> think they are well informed and realistic.  I think Option 3 was thrown
> out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>
> let me know.....
>
> cheers Steph
> On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>
> 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/20180128/5dbefe2a/attachment.htm>