February 2019 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [CPWG] URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report
by Maureen Hilyard Feb. 15, 2019

Feb. 15, 2019

Thank you Gordon. Maureen On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:20 AM Gordon Chillcott <gordontc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I will make every effort to attend today's meeting, but in case I don't > - I support the Draft ALAC Statement. > > > Gordon Chillcott > > > > On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 00:28 +0000, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the > > draft statement to be attached to the report. > > > > I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for > > which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the > > overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations > > do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have > > concerns. > > > > The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether > > Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues. > > > > THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any > > comments with utmost urgency. > > > > Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call > > tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline. > > > > WORD and PDF formats are attached. > > > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > > CPWG mailing list > > CPWG(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [CPWG] URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 15, 2019

Feb. 15, 2019

Thanks George. Rec #6 requires that registrars must give registrants the choice of publishing contract details but there is no timeline when this will be done. So registrars could delay. Alan At 14/02/2019 08:54 PM, George Kirikos wrote: >Hi Alan, > >I have strong concerns that the current recommendations are >anti-choice, namely that they prevent registrants from even consenting >to publication of their full contact detail (i.e. all the contact >details that have historically been in the WHOIS). > >According to the Feb 11, 2019 draft version at: > >https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report > >recommendation #10 forcibly redacts the registrant Name, Street, >Postal Code, Phone, Fax (which is completely missing in the table!). >Email is also redacted, subject to recommendation #13. Footnote 16 >says it can be replaced by a form or anonymized email, but that >suffers from the issues I pointed out at: > >https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-February/000853.html > >Now, Recommendation #13 also refers to "Recommendation X" >(non-existent!) which would allow the Registered Name Holder to >provider consent for publication of just its email address. However, >that doesn't seem to allow the registrant to consent to publication of >*ALL* of its contact details (i.e. name, phone number, fax, full >mailing address, etc.). > >Many registrants *want* that fully published, and these >recommendations take away that choice from the registrant. > >The same issue exists for the tech contact. Some folks want that >separate contact's full info to be collected and published, but aren't >going to be able to even consent to that (again, it just says "Yes" >for "Redacted", without the footnote to consent to publication). That >secondary contact point is going to be useful if the primary contact >has downtime, becomes invalid, is on vacation, or is otherwise >unavailable. With just 1 visible contact, it creates a single point of >failure, if communications are missed. > >In essence, these recommendations are overapplying the GDPR (e.g. to >non-persons, and to those outside the EU), *even* if the registrant >wants to fully consent to full publication of their own data (Rec #17 >shows that overapplication). It takes a "father knows best" approach, >to disregard the registrant's own wishes and doesn't give them the >opportunity to consent, to exercise their own choices. By all means, >if someone wants to not publish their data, respect that choice. But, >those who *do* want to publish their data are totally disrespected by >the current recommendations. > >Folks have many legitimate reasons for wanting to fully publish their >own data, including not wanting their communications to be intercepted >by the registrar, and also to be able to openly demonstrate that they >own their domains! The WHOIS is supposed to be the authoritative >record of domain ownership (simply putting the data on the website >associated with a domain name is *evidence* of ownership, but isn't >*proof* -- the WHOIS is the proof; e.g. the website or nameservers can >be hacked, and have false info in the "evidence", but the WHOIS itself >should always show the true owner). > >The text of the recommendations is also open to interpretation, which >is unwise. e.g. on page 40 it says openly: > >"The Team could not come to agreement on this issue and as such no >recommendation is included in this Final Report in relation to whether >optional also means, optional or required for the registrar to offer." > >i.e. if one can't even agree on what the recommendations *say*, that's >just wishy-washy, and doesn't help anyone. Recommendations should have >clarity, not purposeful ambiguity. > >By forcing more info to be private (even against the wishes of the >registrant), this will erode the trust of the entire DNS. > >BTW, for Recommendation #16, one might want to mention that registrars >routinely accurately determine the location of registrants, in order >to make sure that the correct sales tax is charged to them. I'm not >too concerned about loss of thick WHOIS (.com has proven that thin >WHOIS can work). > >Copying the message originator (on page 2 of the draft letter) isn't >going to work, as it would *enable* spam (unless the originator is >somehow verified in advance). This was pointed out in the first >paragraph of: > >https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-February/000853.html > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >416-588-0269 >http://www.leap.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:28 PM Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the > draft statement to be attached to the report. > > > > I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and > for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support > the overall report, but note that some of the particular > recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but > nevertheless have concerns. > > > > The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question > whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues. > > > > THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please > make any comments with utmost urgency. > > > > Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call > tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline. > > > > WORD and PDF formats are attached. > > > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > > CPWG mailing list > > CPWG(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

1 0

Re: [ALAC] January 2019 ccNSO Update
by Barrack Otieno Feb. 5, 2019

Feb. 5, 2019

*Working/Study Group Meeting Output:* Recordings of various Working Group Meetings can be found here: *http://ccnso.icann.org/calendar <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fccnso.icann.org%2Fcalendar&sa=D&sn…>* 31 January – ccPDP on Retirement Working Group Telephone Conference - Wiki <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FOIANBg…> 30 January - ccNSO Study Group on Use of Emoji as SLD Telephone Conference - Wiki <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FL4ANBg…> 23 January - TLD OPS Standing Committee and Playbook Drafting Team Telephone Conference 21 January – Meetings Programme Committee - Wiki <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FmgSfB&…> 17 January – ccPDP on Retirement Working Group Telephone Conference - Wiki <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FWQn_BQ…> 16 January - ccNSO Study Group on Use of Emoji as SLD Telephone Conference - Wiki <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FKoANBg…> 14 January – Guidelines Review Committee Telephone Conference - Wiki <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FGQb_BQ…> *ccNSO Council:* ccNSO Council call 17 January - wiki <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FQolHBQ…> ccNSO Council preparation material and output can be found here: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/minutes.htm <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fccnso.icann.org%2Fabout%2Fcouncil%…> ccNSO Council Decisions and Resolutions: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions-resolutions.htm <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fccnso.icann.org%2Fabout%2Fcouncil%…> Thank you Best Regards -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

1 0