- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Statement on Reserve Replenishment
by Alan Greenberg April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

As discussed on the ALAC on Tuesday, I have modified the draft statement. Please my comment identifying what has been changed and the final version to be submitted (https://community.icann.org/x/riS8B) Alan

1 0

3 new SSAC correspondences published
by Andrei Kolesnikov April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear ALAC, The SSAC has published 3 new correspondences. SSAC2018-09: Request to Appoint Andrey Kolesnikov to the SSAC <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-09-09apr18-en.pdf> SSAC2018-10: Notice of Appointment of SSAC liaison to ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-10-11apr18-en.pdf> SSAC2018-11: Notice of Appointment of SSAC Liaison to the Nominating Committee of ICANN <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-11-23apr18-en.pdf> -- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET

1 0

Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Judith Hellerstein April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Hi All, Very interesting blog by Ash Rangan. Forwarding this email widely so others could read it and discuss it. Best, Judith Sent from my iPad judith(a)jhellerstein.com Skype ID:JudithHellerstein Begin forwarded message: > From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> > Date: April 20, 2018 at 2:16:27 PM EDT > To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan > > Dear all: > > Please take a look at this blog on Adobe Connect. And note the request: > > Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org > > Best regards, David > > > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next[icann.org] > > ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? > As you know, the ICANN organization took down its Adobe Connect service midway through the ICANN61 meeting in response to reported issues[icann.org] with this service. Concurrently, we began to conduct our own forensic analysis of the reported incident and began working with our Adobe cloud service provider, CoSo Cloud LLC, and through them with Adobe to learn more. Shortly thereafter, we rolled out instances of Zoom and WebEx for the community to support remote participation (RP) and collaboration. Here's where we are now: > > The Forensics Investigation > With respect to our forensics work, we received application logfiles from CoSo Cloud, going back for a period of one year. ICANN Engineering and Security teams have examined these application log files and the results of our investigation clearly show "fingerprints of incursion" by the researcher who reported the issue. We were unable to find any other indication that anyone else either identified or exploited this issue. Thanks to the person who found the bug again. > Working closely with CoSo Cloud, we were able to recreate the reported issue, and understand the conditions required to trigger it. This information has been communicated to Adobe, and Adobe is working on a software fix to address the root cause of the issue. > We have also been working with CoSo on options to re-enable Adobe Connect in the shorter term. We have determined there are two viable paths to accomplish this goal. They are: > Deploy a hardened configuration to eliminate "man-in-the-middle" exploitations by encrypting relevant traffic, or > Implement a programmatic fix from CoSo Cloud to substantially reduce the window during which the issue can be exploited. > With respect to the first option, we attempted to hack the hardened configuration in a test environment last week, and were not able to do so over the course of 7 hours. Separately, CoSo Cloud and Adobe conducted similar tests and confirmed that this configuration is protected from exploitation of the issue. > > Community Feedback and Next Steps > For the last three weeks, we have been gathering limited feedback regarding users' experiences with WebEx and Zoom. So far, we have input from about 200 people, including ICANN org meeting organizers and the ICANN community. Our analysis of this feedback indicates a desire to revert back to an Adobe Connect, providing the security of the service is ensured. > Accordingly, we would like to propose the following plan to the broader community for consideration: > We would like to restore Adobe Connect services with both the new hardened configuration and the programmatic fix discussed above. Our intent would be to restore service by 3 May. This would allow us to use Adobe Connect during several upcoming events including the Board Workshop, the GDD Industry Summit, and ICANN62. > Once Adobe releases a new version of the software with a fix for this issue from their perspective, and provides assurance the update has been adequately tested, we will move toward that release of Adobe Connect in a prudent manner, with the help of CoSo Cloud. > > We believe that this approach will ensure the security of our content, and of our community interactions, while also enabling our community to use the collaboration tools of their choice. > > Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org > > Meanwhile, we will continue to offer WebEx and Zoom for RP and collaboration purposes. We will also continue to follow industry developments, including the research ALAC is doing on the RP and collaboration space, to ensure we are using secure and cost-effective tools that are appropriate for our needs. > > I look forward to your comments! > > > > David A. Olive > Senior Vice President > Policy Development Support > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > _______________________________________________ > SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list > SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [APAC-discuss] Nomination of Holly Raiche as ALAC member of APRALO
by Holly Raiche April 23, 2018

April 23, 2018

Thank you Kaili. They are very kind words which I appreciate very much. I am happy to accept - and will fill out my candidate’s statement in the next 24 hours.. Holly On 23 Apr 2018, at 9:51 pm, Kan Kaili <kankaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear APRALO, > > I would like to nominate Holly Raiche as ALAC member of APRALO. > > Over the last few years Holly has been THE major task force of ALAC's policy work, including WHOIS, At-Large Review, GDPR, CCTR and many many others. She not only chaired many of these task forces, but also was pen-holder of numerous ALAC Advices and statements. She has been the most important person in ALAC's policy effort representing end-users' interests, especially representing APRALO. > > Therefore, I fully believe Holly is the best person to represent APRALO at ALAC. > > Kaili Kan > > > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

1 0

At-Large Review Implementation Overview Proposal
by Alan Greenberg April 23, 2018

April 23, 2018

The vote on the At-Large Review Implementation Overview Proposal has concluded and passed with 14 votes FOR and 1 ABSTENTION. A copy of the approved proposal is attached. It is now being submitted to the OEC for its consideration. Alan

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [technology taskforce] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond April 22, 2018

April 22, 2018

Dear Marita, On 21/04/2018 16:16, Marita Moll wrote: > So I would be very happy to see a return to Adobe as our basic > platform although I don't know whether "hardened" Adobe will look a > bit different. Spot on. The big question is whether a "hardened" Adobe Connect will work the same way as the "old" Adobe Connect, especially across platforms and networks with differing quality of service. Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [Accred-Model] Comment - Alan Greenberg
by Holly Raiche April 22, 2018

April 22, 2018

Alan I see a lot wrong with it - and I see a lot that I disagree with in Jonathan’s first draft. I have been tied up teaching, but finally have a bit of time to put my thoughts down - and I decidedly do NOT think the IPC/BC is a great model. For a very different view, read the NCSG response- attached. So PLEASE - give people at least a bit more time to look at what Jonathan’s response - and mine. Holly On 21 Apr 2018, at 8:20 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > This comment has been circulated within the ALAC and At-Large, but there has not been sufficient time to decide to what extent if it fully accepted. As such, it is being submitted here purely on my personal behalf. > > =============== > > There has been significant community comment that this proposal was originally (and to some extent still is) a creature of the BC. > > I APPLAUD that the BC/IPC have taken the initiative to do this! I and many of us have been saying for several months (certainly starting before the Abu Dhabi meeting) that the accreditation model is an absolute key to moving forward. > > The BC/IPC have done something and put it down on paper. Bravo! > > I think this model is a great start. > > I see problems with it, but we need to start the discussion somewhere. What do I see as problematic? > I think the provision to give access to "All users", while it would be nice for me personally, is more than a bit loose. We are going to need something MUCH stronger to grant access over and above the other accredited channels. > A single tier is not sufficient. There should be more granularity based on the uses. Perhaps we could start with this single and improve later, but my preference would be to use the use-cases we have already built to provide more than one few tier (ie more than just a) thin WHOIS, or b) ALL of the data.) > I look forward to the work that the document says the SSAC is doing regarding credentialization. > I STRONGLY support the comments from the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG). These comments make the model more effective and implementable. The only one I find possible questionable related to funding the accreditation process. Although I would prefer that it is an integral part of the DNS and WHOIS (and thus funded by ICANN through its normal sources), I would not want to see implementation delayed over this issue. > _______________________________________________ > Accred-Model mailing list > Accred-Model(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accred-model

4 5

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Javier Rua April 21, 2018

April 21, 2018

“I want my AdobeC!!!!” (shouted like “I want my MTV!!!”) Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua > On Apr 21, 2018, at 10:16 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll(a)ca.inter.net> wrote: > > I totally agree. My experience with webex and zoom have not been great. There have been audio problems requiring use of both phone and computer interface (to see the slides) -- which causes all kinds of extra work for staff and chairs and sometimes feels like enhanced teleconferencing for the participants. Neither platform is very intuitive and people, myself included, seem to have trouble figuring how to do basic things like mute/unmute, raise hand, etc. > > So I would be very happy to see a return to Adobe as our basic platform although I don't know whether "hardened" Adobe will look a bit different. > > My hat is off to staff and meeting chairs who have been struggling with this change. > > Marita Moll > >> On 4/21/2018 6:47 AM, Holly Raiche wrote: >> I, for one, would be happy to go back to Adobe - I have had real difficulties with webex - I just couldn’t access it. And I miss having the visibility of the text, the sound of the speaker and the availability of chat (both public and private >> >> Holly >>> On 21 Apr 2018, at 4:20 am, Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Very interesting blog by Ash Rangan. Forwarding this email widely so others could read it and discuss it. >>> >>> Best, >>> Judith >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> judith(a)jhellerstein.com >>> Skype ID:JudithHellerstein >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> >>>> Date: April 20, 2018 at 2:16:27 PM EDT >>>> To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> >>>> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan >>>> >>>> Dear all: >>>> >>>> Please take a look at this blog on Adobe Connect. And note the request: >>>> >>>> Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org >>>> >>>> Best regards, David >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next[icann.org] >>>> >>>> ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? >>>> As you know, the ICANN organization took down its Adobe Connect service midway through the ICANN61 meeting in response to reported issues[icann.org] with this service. Concurrently, we began to conduct our own forensic analysis of the reported incident and began working with our Adobe cloud service provider, CoSo Cloud LLC, and through them with Adobe to learn more. Shortly thereafter, we rolled out instances of Zoom and WebEx for the community to support remote participation (RP) and collaboration. Here's where we are now: >>>> >>>> The Forensics Investigation >>>> With respect to our forensics work, we received application logfiles from CoSo Cloud, going back for a period of one year. ICANN Engineering and Security teams have examined these application log files and the results of our investigation clearly show "fingerprints of incursion" by the researcher who reported the issue. We were unable to find any other indication that anyone else either identified or exploited this issue. Thanks to the person who found the bug again. >>>> Working closely with CoSo Cloud, we were able to recreate the reported issue, and understand the conditions required to trigger it. This information has been communicated to Adobe, and Adobe is working on a software fix to address the root cause of the issue. >>>> We have also been working with CoSo on options to re-enable Adobe Connect in the shorter term. We have determined there are two viable paths to accomplish this goal. They are: >>>> Deploy a hardened configuration to eliminate "man-in-the-middle" exploitations by encrypting relevant traffic, or >>>> Implement a programmatic fix from CoSo Cloud to substantially reduce the window during which the issue can be exploited. >>>> With respect to the first option, we attempted to hack the hardened configuration in a test environment last week, and were not able to do so over the course of 7 hours. Separately, CoSo Cloud and Adobe conducted similar tests and confirmed that this configuration is protected from exploitation of the issue. >>>> >>>> Community Feedback and Next Steps >>>> For the last three weeks, we have been gathering limited feedback regarding users' experiences with WebEx and Zoom. So far, we have input from about 200 people, including ICANN org meeting organizers and the ICANN community. Our analysis of this feedback indicates a desire to revert back to an Adobe Connect, providing the security of the service is ensured. >>>> Accordingly, we would like to propose the following plan to the broader community for consideration: >>>> We would like to restore Adobe Connect services with both the new hardened configuration and the programmatic fix discussed above. Our intent would be to restore service by 3 May. This would allow us to use Adobe Connect during several upcoming events including the Board Workshop, the GDD Industry Summit, and ICANN62. >>>> Once Adobe releases a new version of the software with a fix for this issue from their perspective, and provides assurance the update has been adequately tested, we will move toward that release of Adobe Connect in a prudent manner, with the help of CoSo Cloud. >>>> >>>> We believe that this approach will ensure the security of our content, and of our community interactions, while also enabling our community to use the collaboration tools of their choice. >>>> >>>> Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, we will continue to offer WebEx and Zoom for RP and collaboration purposes. We will also continue to follow industry developments, including the research ALAC is doing on the RP and collaboration space, to ensure we are using secure and cost-effective tools that are appropriate for our needs. >>>> >>>> I look forward to your comments! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> David A. Olive >>>> Senior Vice President >>>> Policy Development Support >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list >>>> SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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… >> >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

Fwd: [Accred-Model] Comment - Alan Greenberg
by Holly Raiche April 21, 2018

April 21, 2018

And, I would add, let everyone have a final chance to view the statements. And I’m not sure why it is too late - Evin said the deadline was the 20th Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> > Subject: Re: [Accred-Model] Comment - Alan Greenberg > Date: 21 April 2018 9:52:53 am AEST > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > Please see what I have just done > > On 21 Apr 2018, at 9:50 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >> Holly, I don't set the deadlines. Regarding Jonathan's posted comment on the Article 29 letter, we can tell them to withdraw it if there is a consensus to do so. >> >> Regarding my comment, I said there was no agreement in the ALAC and posted it on my own behalf. I have since been told it was submitted to late and will not be considered for this pass. >> >> The NCSG statement does not talk about the model as such but the basis for its existence. It ignores the phrase "or ny a third party" in Article 6, section 1e of the Regulations which allow the needs of a third party to be considered, and it PRESUMES that the privacy needs with out-weigh the needs for access to provide for the safety and security of the Internet. That is a presumption that I do not agree with. The NCSG strongly objects to a model originating in the BC/IPC. I on the other hand welcome ANYONE working on such a model and specifically would welcome it being transferred to the community as a whole if there were any interest. >> >> Alan >> >> >> At 20/04/2018 06:32 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: >> >>> Alan >>> >>> I see a lot wrong with it - and I see a lot that I disagree with in Jonathanâ€™s first draft. I have been tied up teaching, but finally have a bit of time to put my thoughts down - and I decidedly do NOT think the IPC/BC is a great model. For a very different view, read the NCSG response- attached. So PLEASE - give people at least a bit more time to look at what Jonathanâ€™s response - and mine. >>> >>> Holly >>> >>> >>> On 21 Apr 2018, at 8:20 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>> >>>> This comment has been circulated within the ALAC and At-Large, but there has not been sufficient time to decide to what extent if it fully accepted. As such, it is being submitted here purely on my personal behalf. >>>> >>>> =============== >>>> >>>> There has been significant community comment that this proposal was originally (and to some extent still is) a creature of the BC. >>>> >>>> I APPLAUD that the BC/IPC have taken the initiative to do this! I and many of us have been saying for several months (certainly starting before the Abu Dhabi meeting) that the accreditation model is an absolute key to moving forward. >>>> >>>> The BC/IPC have done something and put it down on paper. Bravo! >>>> >>>> I think this model is a great start. >>>> >>>> I see problems with it, but we need to start the discussion somewhere. What do I see as problematic? >>>> I think the provision to give access to "All users", while it would be nice for me personally, is more than a bit loose. We are going to need something MUCH stronger to grant access over and above the other accredited channels. >>>> A single tier is not sufficient. There should be more granularity based on the uses. Perhaps we could start with this single and improve later, but my preference would be to use the use-cases we have already built to provide more than one few tier (ie more than just a) thin WHOIS, or b) ALL of the data.) >>>> I look forward to the work that the document says the SSAC is doing regarding credentialization. >>>> I STRONGLY support the comments from the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG). These comments make the model more effective and implementable. The only one I find possible questionable related to funding the accreditation process. Although I would prefer that it is an integral part of the DNS and WHOIS (and thus funded by ICANN through its normal sources), I would not want to see implementation delayed over this issue. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Accred-Model mailing list >>>> Accred-Model(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accred-model >>> >>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >>> 1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:PKJyDSpsleGA7L6y7RiwBWziWgjRyLKmjJE77denCviuJRonQvhayYu4Jsewrfvt4fIHBqSNNWOBEgH6tcsIpx/yB9IZo4nij6rTRL0swEKjjZoAA+vJDEXnuDHQVhGx >>> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: >>> t7CF4QknGdnCrBtkrn++DCPtIcMwWyxRraaDjbfhq11S3RQdLImsQGC2GtWCSFDrPmNQZou5n5JOlIuZQTOUBeQ6sQP2XaMw7THt/ZDwIDenl+SOx7PZdl8RT4FTdnfTp/o4mTusjq+jfUg8j0l7XQ8HEt8bxT5NHcOqaTSTYFtk/vpY7ogBepV2zUJGrYg40WdJ0o25loPiwyTUj8HJYbr2Fe+CKcEgU+hnYA8On9dj3/MLRrpl2k68WmjhHUAAbq7D+I0Zd3qoD7VB+giyXyNE7P9Pbc8O9hhUzK5L7ztLe5U+grXCSXN8QwH8x0SK7zdFFWywE/MuzgZaGBNAXe2gFr/MWGrv8LmqxMBBFuJzm0dOX+uV77Xdy2Hd9atmu+cU98j8e/5nhFGPnSPEGXWnQK8s2eN7feivbEPsxoZl2a1LBTOAfi0iFxUxh5s5H/THLm7kN3GI29E6blMhZA== >>> Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; >>> name="NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement Final.docx" >>> Content-Description: NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement >>> Final.docx >>> Content-Disposition: attachment; >>> filename="NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement Final.docx"; >>> size=36187; creation-date="Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:33:49 GMT"; >>> modification-date="Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:33:49 GMT" >>> Content-ID: <ED1DF51241BD3343915D6F3ABE3B1724(a)CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> >

2 1

ALAC Response to Accreditation Model - due date 20 April
by Holly Raiche April 18, 2018

April 18, 2018

Folks We are fast running out of time to develop any kind of response to the accreditation model, even though the deadline for a response has been extended to this Friday. And in the interim, ICANN has received advice from Article 29 on the Interim model. (Article 29 is an advisory Group made up of a data protection authority from each EU member state). Their letter to ICANN, and Marby’s response, are on the home page of ICANN - and for those interested in the issue, I highly recommend reading both. Clearly, the implications of the Article 29 letter are that the Interim Model that we did comment on still raises concerns with them. Those concerns fall under the headings: Breadth of purpose - saying the proposed purposes are too widely drawn the link of purpose to processing - again, because the Whois data has been used does not qualify it as a purpose publication of the data must be linked to the original (and narrowly defined) purpose any access should be limited - not blanket access discussion about the length of retention of data discussion about the transfer of data Accreditation (particularly important in this context) - should only be for legitimate purpose, limited to the original purpose, not blanket access, and under limited conditions Below, I have copied in an email from Scott Hollenbeck, a long standing member of ICANN and one of those involved in the development of the RDAP (access protocol that would allow gated access to registration data) - simply because he has been involved in this issue for a long time and shows he has already worked on a technical solution to this issue - how access to data could work under GDPR. I will try to attend as much as possible of the capacity building webinar on this issue, but have been scheduled to attend an all-day course in the Sydney CBD so may have to miss some of the discussion. I imagine Tom will be very up to date on these issues, but I would like to have been attending the whole of the webinar myself In any case, if at all possible, we should be saying something. Quite apart from the original contribution from the IPC/BC model, the NCSG and Registrars have also made comments (largely challenging the IPC/BC model). I hope we are the one constituency that doesn’t make comments - although I realise that agreement on what to say will be difficult at the best of times. And if it isn’t too late - maybe put this issue on the ALAC policy page - and with it, links to the Article 29 letter, Marby’s response, the registrars’ response and the NCSG response (and any others I have missed - I have copies if that helps) Holly >>> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> After reading the Article 29 WP letter to ICANN >>> (awbs://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby- >>> 11apr18-en.pdf), I started envisioning what process and system could >>> achieve GDPR compliance. What I came to is a token-based system, which >>> would work like this: >>> - Every request is analyzed by a human at an "RDS Clearinghouse". Each >>> request can be for a single data element (like "owner of domain X") or to >>> multiple data elements (like "domains owned by the same owner of domain >>> X"), but requests for multiple data elements are only foreseen to be >>> processed by contracted parties with "Search WHOIS" contract requirements. >>> - Clearinghouse issues a token with query parameters, data elements >>> authorized for response, identity of authorized party, reason for >>> authorization, validity (probably in the order of days), also informing >>> which endpoint to go to. >>> - Authorized party uses that token to access that endpoint, managed by the >>> party with most data about that element (usually a registrar). >>> >>> Note that is not a replacement for credentialing; credentials would still >>> be necessary to get tokens. This is also orthogonal to discussions like >>> which use cases are legitimate or not, GDPR-compliant or not etc.; it's >>> just a more granular approach to authorization that looks more inline with >>> privacy-oriented guidelines including but not limited to GDPR. >> >> Rubens, at a high level you just described how OpenID and OAuth work, except for the "Every request is analyzed by a human" part. > > Scott, > > I believe you are right, although most OAuth models I saw were not that granular to the point of saying "example.TLD, owner, e-mail address, valid until April 20 2018". That's not an OAuth limitation though, just common usage, and it probably could be made to work like this. > And some level of asynchronous communications could even make way for a quick look human analysis. > > > Rubens I have this very model, with human involvement, up and running right now as part of the gTLD RDAP Pilot. All of the attributes you mentioned can be encoded as OAuth claims. The model is described in an Internet-Draft that I first wrote in 2015. Just search for “draft Hollenbeck RDAP OpenID” using your favorite search engine.

6 13