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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hold on, some announcement to be made today and so IPC/BC wont be our main
concern


Rafik


On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 11:36 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180618/896dc523/attachment.htm>