[NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model

[Stephanie Perrin]

I am also of two minds... this is why I am trying to get a blog out on 
the matter, prior to Panama.  We need to explain a few of the 
fundamental facts about accreditation.  I thought I would try to do that 
in a very basic blog.  Given the actual number of requests for data that 
the registrars are receiving (and that the ccTLDs have been receiving 
prior to this whole GDPR thing) the volume may not support a tiered 
access model....so I think it is more important to comment to ICANN more 
broadly, not respond to them.  On the other hand....guess who ICANN 
listens to, we may therefore need to get a direct attack on the record.  
We should discuss this in Panama in my view.

cheers Steph

On 2018-06-18 10:24, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>
> Ayden,
>
> thank you. I am of two mind about this - I don't want us to legitimise 
> it anyhow, but not tearing it apart and not resisting it might do us 
> more good than bad. We might stand on the position that the model has 
> to be developed by the community (and in this regard this model has a 
> major procedural flow), however, it means that we have to insist on 
> the Council that the work on the accreditation should start urgently. 
> I am afraid not everyone on the council would share the same sentiment 
> - IPC/BC apparently could say they have a model proposal and CPH might 
> potentially argue that they have other priorities. May be CPH could be 
> convinced when they take into account Akram's position.
>
> I think we have to argue procedure-wise first without going into the 
> content of this proposal - otherwise by fighting about the content we 
> just somehow legitimise it more. Walking a thin line here, because 
> they might try to advance it and push it forward - but the point that 
> the major parts of the community had no participation and no influence 
> on the content might play a role in declining this process-wise.
>
> Would be happy to hear further thoughts....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
>
> On 18/06/18 15:52, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>> Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it 
>> apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic 
>> proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but 
>> given Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we 
>> will have an accreditation model very soon as the community wants 
>> it), maybe it is...
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) 
>> <FVayra at perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access 
>>> Model that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the 
>>> introduction in Annex I: Registration Directory Service 
>>> Accreditation Authority (RDSAA).
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and we look forward to your further input.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP*
>>>
>>> *PARTNER*
>>>
>>> D. +1.202.654.6255
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Vayra, Fabricio (WDC)
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM
>>> *To:* 'accred-model at icann.org' <accred-model at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model
>>>
>>>
>>> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the 
>>> Accreditation and Access Model.  This, following further comment and 
>>> input from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust 
>>> model.  Notably, this version 1.6 contains new:
>>>
>>>
>>>   * Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners
>>>     and Agents
>>>   * Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data
>>>
>>>
>>> Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further 
>>> developing this model.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you again for your input and support.
>>>
>>>
>>> *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/20180618/ea8ff99a/attachment.htm>