[NCSG-PC] Comments on the Whois compliance models

[Stephanie Perrin]

There are a lot of new comments on the website 
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdpr-legal-analysis-2017-11-17-en

Ours have been acknowledged but not posted as yet.  I am going to focus 
on some of the rather important ones, like this correspondence from the 
European Commission.  We can bicker about the models until the cows come 
home, what is needed now in my view is analysis to combat some of the 
contributions, which if history is anything to go by, will accept some 
of the submissions as truth.  There is a lot of work to do here, 
volunteers willing to do a summary (template might be useful) would be 
most welcome.

Kind regards,

Stephanie

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/avramopoulos-et-al-to-marby-29jan18-en.pdf


<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/avramopoulos-et-al-to-marby-29jan18-en.pdf>



On 2018-01-30 10:31, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Kathy see comments below
>
> 1."The purpose of Whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission." ==> 
> that's absolutely true but we don't have that purpose yet (and I have 
> to tell you that the RDS Working Group is not doing a great job of 
> analyzng "purpose" right now
>
> Then we agree. You should then support the comments, which focuses on 
> developing a mission-consistent purpose. Your logic escapes me
>
> /unlimited "all you can eat access" by everyone, /including 
> intellectual property attorneys and law enforcement. That is happily 
> going to change!!
>
> No, Kathy, it isn’t unless we go with model 3 and then define a 
> limited mission-consistent purpose for Whois
>
> 2."Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and 
> not vary by jurisdiction." ==> Yes, and that's what the ECO Model and 
> Model 2B provide. But, unfortunately, that's Model 3 does not provide 
> uniformity; Model 3 provide great differentiation of protection, with 
> only private individuals being protected, and not the political, 
> sexual, religious, educational groups that I discussed in one of my 
> recent emails - the array of groups that we protect engaged in huge 
> amount of controversial and critical speech and services. *The ICANN 
> Model 3 here is very clear: *"*Display unless field includes personal 
> data." (ICANN's Proposed Interim Models for Compliance, pages 
> 12-14).*  Thus, for noncommercial organizations, exposure of 
> Registrant/Admin/Tech name, address, phone and email will remain 
> completely open. Model 2B and ECO do better and protect legal and 
> natural persons. That's hugely important - and a tribute to our years 
> of work on this subject!
>
> No, Model 3 does not have the registrant name. Check your facts, 
> please. I don’t think there is anything wrong with having the tech 
> contacts name, but here I agree with you that the4re is room for 
> discussion and debate about which data elements could be made public 
> and which couldn’t. That is why it is so unfortunate that the people 
> we had working on this issue dropped the ball and put us in a position 
> to have to hurriedly develop a position on this. It is also a reason 
> why it is bad to have these critical policy diuscussions hidden on the 
> PC list and not taking place before the membership.
>
> 3."No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria 
> for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months."  ==> We are 
> unlikely to go from infinite public access to completely restricted 
> private access right now. The Multistakeholder Process won't support 
> that. But the ECO model does a lot to help on this particular issue. 
> I'll outline in my next email.
>
> So it sounds like you are agreeing that 2B is _/not/_ an option. Again 
> we are in violent agreement.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180130/f06e7ffc/attachment.htm>