- ALAC - lists.icann.org

FW: Meeting Invitation / Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 04 September 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Sept. 2, 2018

Sept. 2, 2018

From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Glandon Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 5:15 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Meeting Invitation / Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 04 September 2018 at 13:00 UTC Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesday's and Thursday's at 13:00 UTC via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/0gONBQ Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

There was an extensive and productive discussion regarding the possible endorsement of SSAC 101 or the SSAC letter to the GNSO (which included a subset of the issues raised in SAC 101 during the CPWG meeting that ended an hour or so ago. This included a presentation of the issues in 101 and identification of those that were included and those not in the letter. Once it it posted, those who we re not on the call may find it interesting to replay the Adobe Connect session from about the 1 hour mark until the end (which went WAY over time).\ The only explicit reservation raised to the items in both documents was a question of whether we should endorse the recommendation that there be no fees associated with RDDS access unless explicitly required by a PDP (in SSAC 101 but not the letter). The final result was with the exception of two people (one incoming ALAC Member and one At-Large participant) those on the call supported endorsement of SAC 101 (the other two favoured endorsing the subset of issues addressed in the letter). For the record, there were five ALAC Members on the call. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

GDPR does allow for this, but the data commissioners have said they do not care. I believe we can make arguments that shift that balance and I certainly feel we need to try. Alan At 29/08/2018 09:35 AM, John Laprise wrote: >While ICANN's situation is unusual, GDPR doesn't >care. The greatest benefit as a nonprofit is >that ICANN can assert "legitimate interest" more >readily than a for profit. However, as I >mentioned, legitimate interest rests on a >balancing test between the interests of a PII >subject and the data controller. There are many >cases where where individual interests outweigh ICANN's. > >On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 2:06 AM Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Sent from my mobile >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 03:35 Alan Greenberg, ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I'm not at all sure that our situation is >comparable. It is certainly far more atypical >than a standard business or nonprofit. > >Most people who have more knowledge of GDPR that >I do deem ICANN to ba a controller, although >perhaps a join controller. But an unusual one in >that unlike most controllers, we do not actually have custody of the data. > >Regarding where we are going on this, I am not >prepared to roll over an just play dead. I think >we need to put up a fight to get where we need >to be. For instance, there are those who are >saying (and using the data commissioners words >to "prove" it, that we must not consider any >needs other than our own. I differ on this. >ICANN is not just responsible for making sure >that the DNS records are orderly. We also have a >responsibility to ensure that the DNS is usable >and trusted. Although the ICANN mission does not >use that word in this context, I believe that an >untrusted DNS may as well not be there and be >replaced with some other mechanism. GPDR DOES >allow us to consider the needs of others. >Article 6.1(f) explicitly says so. It is not >unlimited but it is there and should allow us to >make the case for ensuring that law enforcement >and cyber security workers can get access. That >is part of our job in this game. > >And like some of the SAC101 recommendations, we >need to not only make sure that the data is >there, and accessible, but that it can in >practice be accessed (such as recommendations on RDAP and rate limiting). > > >SO: Agree > >The Temporary Spec is overreaching in that it >says we are responsible for the entire framework >for such activities and that is nonsense, > > >SO: By "we" I believe that ICANN is referred >here, my question to you then is if ICANN is not >who else should responsible for that? (at least on high level basis) > > >but I believe that we do have a responsibility >to ensure that we support that framework and >ensure that some types of data are available. > > >SO: While I agree with the principle of support >from ICANN, may I know who you believe should prepare the framework? > >Regards > > >If that is not why we are on the EPDP, then I >hope someone will tell me that so I can save myself an awful lot of work. > >Alan > > >At 28/08/2018 08:44 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: >>Thanks John >> >>Itâs really helpful hearing from someone who >>has to implement GDPR - and can bring those insights to the table. >> >>I think we all struggle to work through - first >>- whether ICANN is the data processor or >>controller, and from there, what information is >>actually required by whom, used by whom and accessed by whom. >> >>If there were an easy answer, I think weâd be >>there. But none of this is easy, so this insight is really welcome. >> >>Thank you >> >>Holly >>On 29 Aug 2018, at 10:37 am, John Laprise >><<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>jlaprise(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>So in my day job I was one of the GDPR >>>implementation leads and weâve just wrapped >>>up the initial work. We were assisted by an >>>external consultancy. That said, if anything SSAC did not go far enough. >>> >>>ICANN has a contractual basis for data >>>collection related to the contracts it signs. >>>The claim of legitimate interest is stretched >>>well beyond itâs intent and in fact the EU >>>has opined on the balancing test required. My >>>understanding of the balancing test would call >>>into question even legitimate law enforcement >>>requests where the PII was of an individual or >>>organization known to be persecuted. In that >>>case, couldnât exert legitimate interest if it fails the balance test. >>> >>>I am sympathetic to the needs of security >>>researchers and law enforcement but ICANN data >>>collection does not exist for them, though it >>>is used by them. The proper scope is >>>identifying what data SSAC and RSAC need and use to advance ICANNâs mission. >>> >>>While rationale for data collection is one >>>pain point, another that my org discover was >>>in terms of data transfer/processing. >>>Legitimate interest is not recognized >>>rationale there. Moreover as a US nonprofit >>>ICANN is ineligible for PrivacyShield which could give it some cover. >>> >>>Finally and perhaps to make matters worse, the >>>technical spec instruct registries on data >>>collection. I confess that at this point Iâm >>>not sure whether ICANN is acting as a data >>>controller or a data processor. In a sense, >>>the registries are data controllers and ICANN >>>is the data processor, thrusting the onus of compliance upon registries. >>> >>>Iâm at the limits of my GDPR for the day so >>>additional thoughts would be welcome. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>John >>> >>>From: ALAC >>><<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche >>>Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:17 PM >>>To: Marita Moll >>><<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>mmoll(a)ca.inter.net> >>>; ALAC <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>Cc: Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >>>Subject: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input >>> >>>Thanks Marita >>> >>>I like your wording. Ys it is a big document >>>and I like your wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse. >>> >>>Holly >>>On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>> >>>Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is >>>all that different from endorsing the entire >>>paper when you start examining the rationales, >>>but I would be happy to accept that if we can >>>get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process. >>>Alan >>>At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote: >>> >>> >>>Sorry to have missed the call -- still >>>confusing midnight Monday with midnight >>>Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. >>>I just read this really well done SSAC report >>>which is clear and thorough. But there is a >>>lot in there. I wonder if we should do a >>>blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. >>>Could we not have a more nuanced position? For >>>example, we could say that, in line with our >>>mandate to support end-users, we support >>>SSAC's position on ensuring that security >>>professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. >>>If that is the point we want to make. >>>Marita >>>On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>> >>>As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just >>>completed, all EPDP participant groups have >>>been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. >>>So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. >>>Their input can be found >>>at<https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>https >>><https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. >>>The SSAC's input consisted of their recent >>>report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. >>>I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a >>>statement saying that we support SAC101, as it >>>is in line with our stated position of trying >>>to ensure that security professionals and law >>>enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. >>>I open the floor for discussion and will >>>initiate a Consensus Call later in the week. >>>Alan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>ALAC mailing list >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> >>>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>At-Large Online: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>At-Large Online: >>><http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>) >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>At-Large Online: >>><http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>> >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

See embedded. At 29/08/2018 03:06 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Sent from my mobile >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 03:35 Alan Greenberg, ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I'm not at all sure that our situation is >comparable. It is certainly far more atypical >than a standard business or nonprofit. > >Most people who have more knowledge of GDPR that >I do deem ICANN to ba a controller, although >perhaps a join controller. But an unusual one in >that unlike most controllers, we do not actually have custody of the data. > >Regarding where we are going on this, I am not >prepared to roll over an just play dead. I think >we need to put up a fight to get where we need >to be. For instance, there are those who are >saying (and using the data commissioners words >to "prove" it, that we must not consider any >needs other than our own. I differ on this. >ICANN is not just responsible for making sure >that the DNS records are orderly. We also have a >responsibility to ensure that the DNS is usable >and trusted. Although the ICANN mission does not >use that word in this context, I believe that an >untrusted DNS may as well not be there and be >replaced with some other mechanism. GPDR DOES >allow us to consider the needs of others. >Article 6.1(f) explicitly says so. It is not >unlimited but it is there and should allow us to >make the case for ensuring that law enforcement >and cyber security workers can get access. That >is part of our job in this game. > >And like some of the SAC101 recommendations, we >need to not only make sure that the data is >there, and accessible, but that it can in >practice be accessed (such as recommendations on RDAP and rate limiting). > > >SO: Agree > >The Temporary Spec is overreaching in that it >says we are responsible for the entire framework >for such activities and that is nonsense, > > >SO: By "we" I believe that ICANN is referred >here, my question to you then is if ICANN is not >who else should responsible for that? (at least on high level basis) AG: I suspect we will find that there is no one who is responsible, and that indeed there is no unified single "framework". But there are aoperational processes and it is to thatose that I beleive we need to ensure the availability of salient information. >but I believe that we do have a responsibility >to ensure that we support that framework and >ensure that some types of data are available. > > >SO: While I agree with the principle of support >from ICANN, may I know who you believe should prepare the framework? > >Regards > > >If that is not why we are on the EPDP, then I >hope someone will tell me that so I can save myself an awful lot of work. > >Alan > > >At 28/08/2018 08:44 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: >>Thanks John >> >>Itâs really helpful hearing from someone who >>has to implement GDPR - and can bring those insights to the table. >> >>I think we all struggle to work through - first >>- whether ICANN is the data processor or >>controller, and from there, what information is >>actually required by whom, used by whom and accessed by whom. >> >>If there were an easy answer, I think weâd be >>there. But none of this is easy, so this insight is really welcome. >> >>Thank you >> >>Holly >>On 29 Aug 2018, at 10:37 am, John Laprise >><<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>jlaprise(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>So in my day job I was one of the GDPR >>>implementation leads and weâve just wrapped >>>up the initial work. We were assisted by an >>>external consultancy. That said, if anything SSAC did not go far enough. >>> >>>ICANN has a contractual basis for data >>>collection related to the contracts it signs. >>>The claim of legitimate interest is stretched >>>well beyond itâs intent and in fact the EU >>>has opined on the balancing test required. My >>>understanding of the balancing test would call >>>into question even legitimate law enforcement >>>requests where the PII was of an individual or >>>organization known to be persecuted. In that >>>case, couldnât exert legitimate interest if it fails the balance test. >>> >>>I am sympathetic to the needs of security >>>researchers and law enforcement but ICANN data >>>collection does not exist for them, though it >>>is used by them. The proper scope is >>>identifying what data SSAC and RSAC need and use to advance ICANNâs mission. >>> >>>While rationale for data collection is one >>>pain point, another that my org discover was >>>in terms of data transfer/processing. >>>Legitimate interest is not recognized >>>rationale there. Moreover as a US nonprofit >>>ICANN is ineligible for PrivacyShield which could give it some cover. >>> >>>Finally and perhaps to make matters worse, the >>>technical spec instruct registries on data >>>collection. I confess that at this point Iâm >>>not sure whether ICANN is acting as a data >>>controller or a data processor. In a sense, >>>the registries are data controllers and ICANN >>>is the data processor, thrusting the onus of compliance upon registries. >>> >>>Iâm at the limits of my GDPR for the day so >>>additional thoughts would be welcome. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>John >>> >>>From: ALAC >>><<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche >>>Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:17 PM >>>To: Marita Moll >>><<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>mmoll(a)ca.inter.net> >>>; ALAC <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>Cc: Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >>>Subject: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input >>> >>>Thanks Marita >>> >>>I like your wording. Ys it is a big document >>>and I like your wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse. >>> >>>Holly >>>On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>> >>>Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is >>>all that different from endorsing the entire >>>paper when you start examining the rationales, >>>but I would be happy to accept that if we can >>>get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process. >>>Alan >>>At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote: >>> >>> >>>Sorry to have missed the call -- still >>>confusing midnight Monday with midnight >>>Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. >>>I just read this really well done SSAC report >>>which is clear and thorough. But there is a >>>lot in there. I wonder if we should do a >>>blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. >>>Could we not have a more nuanced position? For >>>example, we could say that, in line with our >>>mandate to support end-users, we support >>>SSAC's position on ensuring that security >>>professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. >>>If that is the point we want to make. >>> >>>Marita >>>On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>> >>>As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just >>>completed, all EPDP participant groups have >>>been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. >>>So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. >>>Their input can be found >>>at<https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>https >>><https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. >>>The SSAC's input consisted of their recent >>>report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. >>>I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a >>>statement saying that we support SAC101, as it >>>is in line with our stated position of trying >>>to ensure that security professionals and law >>>enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. >>>I open the floor for discussion and will >>>initiate a Consensus Call later in the week. >>>Alan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>ALAC mailing list >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> >>>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>At-Large Online: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>At-Large Online: >>><http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>) >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>At-Large Online: >>><http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>> >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

EPDP Early input
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week. Alan

10 17

Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

I note that the letter referenced was providing guidance to the GNSO Council in drafting the Charter and specifically the scope of the EPDP. The SSAC sent the full SAC101 to the EPDP as "early input". It omits the parts of SAC101 not relevant to setting scope. Alan At 28/08/2018 07:16 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >The At-Large is well-advised to take SSAC publications seriously. >For in regard to problem definition, analysis and recommendations to >solution they are thorough, devoid of hysteria and exhibits an >internal logic any sentient being can apply. > >A >suggestion. ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-17-26jun18-en.pdf>SAC2018-17 >details the high-level recommendations as principles that the SSAC >believes should guide ePDP deliberations. The SSAC say these >recommendations are extracted from the SAC101 Advisory; in their own >words, "several of the recommendations are specifically designed as >inputs to the ePDP" then in construction and particularized further >in SAC2018-17. > >I have read SAC101 publication and on balance of fact, so >affirm. If you recall, this is the kind of approach some of us >advised the ALAC should embrace to guide participation of At-Large >representatives on the ePDP. One cannot now say that such a document >- meaning an At-Large developed and ALAC-endorsed document >- emerged from that lot of interventions. > > What I can say is the SSAC-enunciated principles look very much > like those the rational mind of an At-Large participant would > support. I would urge you reject this malignant At-Large propensity > to re-invent the wheel. Endorse the principles as outlined in > SAC2018-17 and save yourselves a bother without a redeemable quality. > >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Marita Moll ><<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>mmoll(a)ca.inter.net> wrote: >Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday >with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. >I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and >thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a >blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. >Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say >that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support >SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law >enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. >If that is the point we want to make. >Marita >On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP >>participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide >>"early input" into the EPDP. >>So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found >>at <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. >>The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is >>attached for your convenience. >>I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying >>that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position >>of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement >>have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. >> >>I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call >>later in the week. >>Alan >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> >>ALAC mailing list >> >> >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >> >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> >> >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position. I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement. And thank you for jumping in! :-) Alan At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: >Thank you Alan and Andrei for the updates. > >Please excuse my newcomer confusion - not >meaning to stir the pot here - but I'm wondering >how close At-Large's/ALAC's position is to that >of the SSAC? Do we agree with their report 100%? >My initial thinking is that representing users, >we might want a somewhat more diversified >approach than that offered by the SSAC, ensuring >full GDPR compliance (I'm happy to elaborate if >needed). Also, would it make sense to take on >the positions of other communities in our >statement, if only for the sake of future >consensus building? As already briefly mentioned >to Alan, I'm happy to help with the drafting if needed. > >Best to all, >Joanna Kulesza >-------------------------------- >Joanna Kulesza, PhD >assistant professor of international law and Internet governance >Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz >Kopcinskiego Street 8/12, 90-232 Lodz, Poland >publications: ><https://unilodz.academia.edu/JoannaKulesza/>https://unilodz.academia.edu/JoannaKulesza/ >website: ><https://pl.linkedin.com/in/kuleszajoanna>https://pl.linkedin.com/in/kuleszajoanna > >wt., 28 sie 2018 o 08:27 Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> napisaÅ(a): >As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just >completed, all EPDP participant groups have been >given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. >So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their >input can be found at ><https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. >The SSAC's input consisted of their recent >report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. >I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a >statement saying that we support SAC101, as it >is in line with our stated position of trying to >ensure that security professionals and law >enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. >I open the floor for discussion and will >initiate a Consensus Call later in the week. >Alan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

5 12

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation: ALAC Monthly Call on Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 04:00 UTC
by Holly Raiche Aug. 27, 2018

Aug. 27, 2018

Folks Sorry but I am an apology for this meeting. Wearing another hat, I am convening a meeting of Internet Australia’s Policy committee on the Government’s draft legislation on encryption. I will, however, be participating in the ALAC Review call and the call for the CPWG (and staff- may I please have a dial out for both - thanks) Holly On 3 Aug 2018, at 3:21 am, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > The August ALAC Monthly Call is scheduled for Tuesday, 28 August 2018 from 04:00 – 06:00 UTC. > > For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y9cljjy2 > > The agenda (to be updated) and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/2gtpBQ > > Conference ID’s: > English: 1638 > Spanish: 1738 > French: 1838 > Russian: 2138 > > Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ > > If you are unable to attend the call please send an email indicating your absence and we will note this information on the agenda. > If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > Thank you. > Kind Regards, > At-Large Staff > > ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community > > Website: atlarge.icann.org > Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge > Twitter: @ICANNAtlarge > > > > > > > <ALAC Monthly Call.ics>_______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Reaffirmation of Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Aug. 23, 2018

Aug. 23, 2018

Dear all, As some of you might already know, the ICANN Board of Directors held a special meeting on Monday August 21st in order to reaffirm the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. A blog post has ben published here <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-08-23-en> The Temporary Specification will be valid for another 90 days and if needed, the ICANN Board will reaffirm it again for another 90 day period not to exceed a total of one year of validity from first issuance. I hope you find this information useful. Best regards, León

1 0

Call for Nominations for At-Large representative on the ICANN Fellowship Program Selection Committee - Deadline 28 August
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 23, 2018

Aug. 23, 2018

Dear All, On behalf of Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, this is a call for nominations for the At-Large representative on the ICANN Fellowship Program Selection Committee. According to the Call for SO/AC Nominations to the New ICANN Fellowship Selection Committee: The revised program will feature a new ICANN Fellowship Program Selection Committee starting on 26 October 2018. The Selection Committee will be composed of seven members, one from each participating SO/AC. Applicants should visit this link [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> for more information on responsibilities and expectations associated with this role. The successful candidate will represent the ALAC for a period of two years. Candidates must meet the following criteria as stated in full here link [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>: * Selection Committee member expectations: o Represent the global Internet community, with a strong history of experience with specific sector(s) of the Internet ecosystem including, but not limited to, technical Internet issues; government, academia, commercial or non-commercial issues; I* entities; underserved and/or under-represented communities and/or Internet related development, or other fellowship programs o Be an active member of At-Large for at least two years (Definitions of active membership may vary, but generally include penholders for ICANN policy/procedural comments contributing significant time to At-Large) o Have a good understanding of ICANN and work conducted by other SOs/ACs o Have attended ICANN meetings as an active contributor/panelist/chair to a policy session * Additional notes: o It is desirable for Selection Committee representatives to have contributed meaningfully to cross-community working groups and/or be an active member of I* organizations o Nominated Selection Committee members may be Fellowship Program alumni o The At-Large member of the Selection Committee is expected to interact with the ALAC as well as the ALAC Subcommittee on Outreach & Engagement to solicit input as well as get feedback on selections. At-Large candidates should send an expression of interest in this Google Doc<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScTtz9UTK6RGMz7lT7fDbYV2e0lixU2VDq…> and send in an email to At-Large Staff by 28 August 2018: * Describing their interest. * Detailing their credentials which makes them think they can do a good job. * Committing to put sufficient time into it. * Committing to solicit input and feedback from At-Large as appropriate. The ALAC Appointee Selection Subcommittee (AASC) will review all candidates between 30 August and 5 September 2018. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<http://www.twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0