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

[Dr. Tatiana Tropina]

Yeah, I think the broad action like explaining in general + a call for a
community-developed model would be attacking this, er, paper (I won't
even call it a model!) indirectly anyway. Once the community agrees to
start the process of accreditation -- I believe there is no way to
implement bilateral/unilateral actions of certain constituencies because
it will contradict to the on-going process at ICANN -- or may be am
naïve but at least the risk of this IPC/BC "proposal" or whatever
passing though anyhow would be significantly reduced.

Cheers,

Tanya


On 18/06/18 16:30, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180618/492309be/attachment.htm>