[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model

[Ayden Férdeline]

I do agree that we should not accept an access model that has been developed informally, in isolation, by one segment of the community, however it seems very likely that this model (or something very similar to it) will be rolled out during the few weeks that the EPDP team has to develop an initial report.

So I think an annotated version of their model, laying out what should be our objections to it, would be an incredibly useful resource. Better to work on this now and to be able to immediately table it when their proposal is put forward. If you could produce this Stephanie, it would not be in vain... similarly for the annotated temp spec, this would be very helpful.

I think we also need to document somewhere why we think this EPDP is bound for failure (section J, excessive SO/AC participation, etc.) so we can refer back to this in the future when it inevitably happens. One of the issues with the GDPR was that while I know we (or at least Stephanie) had been calling ICANN out for its lack of adherence to the law, there was never a statement I could find, dated a few years in advance, calling for ICANN to comply with the GDPR. I think it would be useful if we prepared a small repository of either the abstentions or a short comment *dated ahead of the first EPDP meeting* that outlined our concerns and fears.

Best wishes, Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 22 July 2018 5:12 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> yes, they can try but there will be pushback. I think there is also the ICANN org UAM in the mix (for which we need to decide if we will respond or not). I won't speculate now but let's see how things will move in EPDP team and in particular for the gating questions first.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 à 09:04, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> Our stance on this is that we don't accept any accreditation
>> /a
>> ccess
>> model that has not been developed by the community.
>> Our
>> very first question should b
>> e
>> whet
>> her we need an accreditation model. We
>>
>> provide our own access model when the opportunity arises. But by no means IPC/BC model can be accepted as a done deal or the only model that can be focused on.
>>
>> I think other councilors should be on the same page and if this gets discussed at the council support and bring up this view point.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> as can be seen by the 62 page attachment, the BC and IPC have been busy working on their accreditation model.  We have to focus on this fast, it will be brought in as a fait accompli to the EPDP as soon as they can.  I will do a markup as soon as I get the markup of the interim spec done....but we need to know who is on the EPDP as soon as possible, and start a new EPDP and observer list.
>>>
>>> cheers STeph
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:	[Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model
>>> Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:12:11 +0000
>>> From:	Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) [<FVayra at perkinscoie.com>](mailto:FVayra at perkinscoie.com)
>>>
>>> To:	'accred-model at icann.org' [<accred-model at icann.org>](mailto:accred-model at icann.org)
>>>
>>> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model.
>>>
>>> Note that Section II has been formatted in a way to mirror the questions posed by ICANN Org in its recent unified access model discussion paper.  This version 1.7 is meant to advance the very discussion on the critical need for accreditation and access.
>>>
>>> Other notable updates to this version 1.7:
>>>
>>> - The introduction section has been updated.
>>>
>>> - Annex A is now titled “Rationale” and edited accordingly.
>>>
>>> - Annex C is now populated with input from cybersecurity experts.
>>>
>>> - Annex F (verification and compliance for private parties) is now populated.
>>>
>>> - Annex G is a discussion on accreditation oversight and types.
>>>
>>> Again, thank you to those who made helpful contributions to advancing this model.  We look forward to a robust discussion and further input.
>>>
>>> Fabricio Vayra| Perkins Coie LLP
>>>
>>> PARTNER
>>>
>>> D. +1.202.654.6255
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180722/e209c378/attachment.htm>