[NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation

Mon Jan 18 17:01:54 EET 2021

Hey all,

As discussed on the list, I have drafted a letter for the ICANN Board and
CEO asking for some clarifications on recent declarations around SSAD and
Content Moderation. The draft has been shared with the membership exactly 6
days ago and I would like to also call the PC attention to it.

I intend to send it asap, but in case the PC wants to chime in and add its
comments to the proposed text, I can wait a few days. For that I will be
waiting for your replies until tomorrow morning.

Link to the letter:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mmax62EkxSRgr8AMi8jqnNXlP36cjRdfqFy6gYrmnPY/edit

best,
B

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
To: Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>
Cc: NCSG List <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>

Hello all,

First of all, thank you very much for the comments on this thread. As
suggested, I took the liberty of taking Sam's comments and shaping into a
letter to the ICANN Board and CEO on this topic.

The darft can be found here -
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mmax62EkxSRgr8AMi8jqnNXlP36cjRdfqFy6gYrmnPY/edit
- and I would like to invite you all to add your comments and suggestions
to it.

Considering this letter is about a communication issued by ICANN Org to the
EPDB in December, I would say it's good for us to send it maybe next week.
But, as usual, I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter as well.

Best,
Bruna

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:56 PM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Milton, the comments are in the public domain and the NCSG is free to use
> them as they see fit. Thanks for the support.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> *From:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 3:51 PM
> *To:* Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* RE: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
>
>
>
> This is a great comment, Sam, why don’t NCSG officers just copy and paste
> them into an emailed letter to the CEO and Board?
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Sam
> Lanfranco
> *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 2:22 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
>
>
>
> As I understand the “*ICANN org Comments on the Recommendations 01/2020
> on Measures That Supplement Transfer Tools  to Ensure Compliance With  the
> EU Level  of Protection of Personal Data*”, they deal primarily with the
> transfer of data between regulatory jurisdictions and the processes
> necessary to meet a strict interpretation of the GDPR’s international data
> transfer requirements.
>
>
>
> This has absolutely nothing to do with “…*stopping and preventing the
> dissemination of illegal content and in order to avoid related societal
> harms*.” (*Comments: p. 2*) except in so far as legitimate requests by
> legal authorities may be related to investigations around such matters.
> Given that such matters reside outside ICANN’s remit, ICANN org should be
> asked to expunge the phrase from its position on transfer tool compliance
> with the EU’s personal data protections.
>
>
>
> Secondly, I have a couple of questions in areas that are not clear to me.
> The *Comments* say that the proposed SSAD model would introduce *“…a
> centralized process for managing access requests and placing ICANN org in
> the middle of this process*.” They go on to say “*ICANN org or its
> designee(s) would manage a system for the intake of requests for data and
> would route these requests to the registrar or registry operator for a
> response*.”
>
>
>
> It is not clear if, in one way or another, ICANN would be the central
> clearing house for dealing with such requests, and it is not clear to whom “
> *designee(s*)” refers to.  My question is whether an ICANN-centric
> clearing house is the proper solution here, or whether a less centralized
> multilateral agreed upon set of principles (and processes) would better
> serve the intended objectives? Also, any transfer involves at least two
> national jurisdictions, so a rogue recipient state’s behavior could be
> blocked by a sending state in compliance with agreed principles and
> processes.
>
>
>
> Lastly, is there an issue of who decides whether an inter-state request is
> legitimate?
>
>
>
> Sam Lanfranco
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Stephanie
> Perrin
> *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 10:33 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
>
>
>
> Thanks for raising this Farzi, i will confess that i was goofing off at
> Christmas and totally missed this letter.  I will raise it at the next EPDP
> meeting, and I think this ought to be raised at Council as well.  I should
> have raised it at the meeting yesterday of the small team looking at the
> other SSAD response (letter from the Board) even if it is a mite off topic
> there....this is a real  howler.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 21:03, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Thank you Farzaneh and Bruna. Could easily have flown under the radar and
> forgotten after Christmas. This is certainly an important matter. Looks
> typical in its language: putting various kinds of processing as matters of
> "necessity" without looking into purpose and context of such processing.
> ICANN is no "surveillance capitalist," but precisely if it sticks to its
> narrow mandate and to appropriately, narrowly designed processing, it will
> also steer clear of any form of trouble with (most) DPAs and their related
> statutes. Now, if it starts giving in to pressures by certain interests to
> stop the "social harm" of fake gucci bags (hmm...), well, we get that kind
> of letter, I suppose.
>
>
>
> I'd be happy to help on the matter.
>
>
>
> Have a nice day!
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:27 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you so much for raising this here Farz.  I will definitely mention
> this topic when I have my next interaction with Goran.
>
>
>
> About the Content Moderation part, I agree with you that this topic might
> be absolutely out of the scope of the SSAD and ICANN as well. And this has
> been a point this community has raised before - more than just once and
> about Whois and CoMo. I also happen to agree that the definitions of
> Illegal content and content related to societal harm are rather open and
> problematic for the SSAD - or for many other discussions as well.
>
> Should we work on a letter - to the Board, the EPDB or both - reviving our
> arguments about Whois and Content moderation and send it once again ? Are
> there any volunteers who would like help me with this ?
>
> Best,
> Bruna
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:00 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> In my spare time, I got to read ICANN's letter dated 21 December 2020 to
> EDPB about compliance with GDPR.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-org-comments-edpb-recs-21dec20-en.pdf
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2Ficann-org-comments-edpb-recs-21dec20-en.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40GATECH.EDU%7C120fb15e918b4593cbcd08d8b40ab7f4%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637457305705415204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OYD%2F%2FPaI8UbF69q4aee3gMjUtVvIxcLENBr%2Fzsp%2F%2BRQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> There was one alarming issue raised in this letter, and since the Internet
> community has been mentioned, I think we should at least ask Bruna to raise
> it with the CEO next time she talks to him. I know we haven't drafted
> other  important comments but I haven't followed EPDP so will leave that to
> the members.
>
>
>
> P.2: "The SSAD is therefore instrumental for stopping and preventing the
>
> *dissemination of illegal content and in order to avoid related societal
> harm*s". This is alarming because the SSAD is serving ICANN's mission
> which has nothing to do with the regulation of illegal content and that is
> outside of its mission. I don't know what they mean by societal harm. We
> have many times told ICANN not to be careless when it comes to the limited
> function of WHOIS and relate it to content regulation. They said they
> wouldn't. But here they are definitely going into those territories.
>
>
>
> There are other matters in the letter as well but I haven't had the time
> to read closely, for example they are talking about "thick WHOIS" not
> happening because of the strict international transfer. I am not sure where
> epdp is at with discussing thick whois. Can we even have it in place?
>
>
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>
>
>
> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>
> @boomartins
>
>

-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins

-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20210118/05b3cbf1/attachment.htm>