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

[farzaneh badii]

I am of one mind. And this has always beeny approach. Any comment on this
from ncsg should be only a statement to the board warning them not to adopt
it and provide reasons and send a copy to wp29

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> 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> <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>
> <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 listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180618/b3f9b7c1/attachment.htm>