- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Response to Accreditation Model - due date 20 April
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

I have added my initial comments to the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/WwAFBQ) and include them here for your convenience. I will develop this into a statement (likely complete mid-day Thursday) that I will submit on my own behalf. If anyone supports this, I will be glad to include others. Alan ==================== I have not had the time to do a very thorough analysis but I do have several comments based on my review of the document and related to Holly's comments. I agree that this work to date is a creature of the BC/IPC and the parties that have commented to date. I APPLAUD that. I an 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. In fact, some of you may recall that in answer to the Board's question to us about do we have any suggestions to mitigate the problems associated with GDPR, the ALAC answered YES. The answer was that we need to stop working in slow steps and start parallel efforts on all aspects of the problem, the most important being the accreditation model. We were ignored. The BC/IPC have done something and put it down on paper. Bravo! Holly has pointed out that we can only collect data that we need. Correct. But my interpretation of our mission is to provide a reliable trusted DNS. To do that we MUST ensure that those who help ensure that the DNS meets that target have access to the tools (and data) that they need to do their jobs. That IS our business!!! If we do not ensure that necessary data is collected, it can never be used by those with legitimate need. We need to state that clearly. Ultimately if I understand the process, it may be the courts that decide whether our rationale for collecting data is sufficiently strong to out-weight the privacy aspects. That brings us to the accreditation model, since WHO can get access to WHAT data is critical to us making that argument. 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 their 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. * I agree with Holly that 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 already built (and how we spent the first many months of this project) to provide a few tiers. * I look forward to the work that the document says the SSAC is doing regarding credentialization. * I STRONGLY support the <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84213851/APWG-GDPR-Accredi…>comments from the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG). These comments make the model more effective and implementable. At 17/04/2018 04:06 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I said *I* would try to add some comments tonight. Add to what you >had said (on Wiki now that it is there). Still hope to but time running out. > >To be clear, it IS *OUR* job to make sure that the DNS is safe and >reliable. That is our only job! Law enforcement, or anyone else that >can justify their need can get data only if we first collect it. > >But that is not relevant to the accreditation model as Scott says. > >At 17/04/2018 07:13 AM, Holly Raiche wrote: >>Hi Alan >> >>When you say ?we can add some comments tonight? my questions are >> * what comments? >> * and add to what? >>There is no link on the policy page to the accreditation model. >> >>And next - I?d have to differ on your views. Article 29 starts >>from basic privacy principles - as followed in over 100 countries >>around the globe with data protection regimes. First basic >>principle: only collect personal information that is necessary to >>do YOUR job. You don?t collect information you don?t need. Next >>principle: You tell the data subject why you need their personal >>information, and the circumstances in which that information will >>be shared. It is to THAT limited use and disclosure that people >>consent to giving their personal information. And it is in those >>LIMITED circumstances in which personal information is >>disclosed. The fact that others may want access is irrelevant. >> >>So that right away limits who gets information - and in limited >>circumstances only. >> >>In almost every data protection regime, law enforcement will be a >>circumstance in which personal information is made available. But >>again - not blanket permission, but in circumstances where there is >>a reasonable chance that illegal/harmful activity is or has taken >>place. And a further read suggests that access would also be given >>to Government/government authorised authorities as well. Two >>examples in Australia would be ASIC, our prudential regulator, and >>the ACCC, our competition and consumer watchdog. So the category >>of law enforcement probably extends to other regulatory/enforcement >>agencies - again, in situations where harm is suspected/occuring. >> >>So - far from having an outstanding lack of knowledge about the >>Internet and ICANN, Article 29 know exactly what is going on. And >>it is what now amounts to unlawful release of personal information >>- and not just in the EU. >> >>If there is to be any even slightly middle ground, it will be close >>to the model that Scott has already tested - access is possible, >>but to specific, accredited people and for specific >>situations. And it is in THAT context that the DNS will be >>protected. (and, as the cyber security advisor to our Prime >>Minister said, when asked how to make the Internet safe, replied >>that it isn?t possible to make it safe, only safer.) >> >>Holly >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On 17 Apr 2018, at 4:58 pm, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >> >>>Holly I have been travelling and am ties up in meetings all day >>>(Brussels time), but I hope to add some comments later tonight. >>> >>>I caution care in interpreting the Article 29 letter. Despite some >>>valid concerns, it shows an astounding lack of knowledge of the >>>Internet and ICANN's mission. As a prime example is their advice >>>to just focus on our own business and not that of others such as >>>law enforcement or those combatting cyber issues. Our mission is >>>to protect the DNS and that includes making it reliable and safe. >>>But we do not have the ability to do that ourselves and thus must >>>provide the tools for others to do that. If we fail, we are NOT >>>carrying out our mission. >>> >>>This will get more interesting in coming weeks. >>> >>>Alan >>> >>> >>> >>>At 16/04/2018 07:58 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: >>> >>>>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-> >>>>>>>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. >>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>Content-Disposition: inline >>>>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >>>> >>>>1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:E+eV2ZOSHNubNtVECuy/VM/L0xhmfXbZcuSQZbzTXSXqae7LUG8EA97rPf+2WwLbTntAgo7cpRKp5nw8d8T6ebvY8Vy/iFaEy7AJW3LXmiMa8o52Hh4X6vuxt8b9Dc+H >>>>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: >>>> >>>>mbIfSQV0+eZC39ENiUAspKdQkF0+JSTZwhHzgGzIJcnMTMtI1YFjxfAYUWl5x8Xsb0hCkvQc7VzC4AbTCpUbUGRQU6RcE5UUx1wEGk3WXKVvz27yXSf3osNfP8UwExDIUIL1xB46d04FaxAvbFZx3V7Y2ZVoGnlOF9jsJrXvgUSoJT4DsABV8smZdk4vNHRjunBYHmX/Uyc08KK5W5zM0fDRY7NEhuy8gp+3GzVz4A/5TqlICRbEqPiDy4iZWnOAaPiE4ELCAfZPmhMusibjqJno9CcaR04f9ovSYOL+LGRVBVtQ1M9b/SxTHtnAjl+ENjnGKfOC/j1+ryUspB55Z6d0P1zabIZYAwo87l1z4xMWzu3tmPExSwczo7sS129laKLyfrpQKQl6gt36u0ia78/RPd+UH+swgobcmXrp+pNPCIV60r6mKu9CLHxwfljZtI62wcXHykdzvBpIoyKjBQ== >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>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… ) >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:h8Wpez2dvY2XET3Ia5h4qAquPuwzm9VE+f0o9jAx4u4JqdcaeoFZrcLq85n2mYD3F4D2JBZ3d82Dv7LQjy5P6IxhefwMl889OIqCzWY/L0tSlen3d//E+BIL29ZiuFwf >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: > >hY7ED33x23ZkuHwojyFbo9fT4+q8fh7UeaasB8GnDHvh0BflWaNXsKsfMieZOnBdYbD+6BGXeHDMiXHJ4CDj98J676LIfAnkqt5z4g81tEHWJeDXO46Rto11D8dDGA4rxI/gjrCwmWqpqYSFxjr5NSqyxKmG3FmUIfJkbMQ2MCGUw+UiodOO00BPDdel1hHHnTKdSFJh8jGtpFMe8Lki/O10iRkZbOfd3AjshkUl4bg= > >_______________________________________________ >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

2018 ALAC Monthly Call schedule for the rest of the year
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 16, 2018

April 16, 2018

Dear All, Please find attached a schedule for the 2018 ALAC Monthly calls for the rest of the year, to include corresponding local times across the time zones (regions observing DST taken into account). Please confirm whether you see any major issue with any of the dates & times suggested. Note the times of 04:00, 12:00 and 21:00 UTC were established a while back. These times were the result of a Doodle poll. By rotating, we all share the pain with some inconvenient times. Hopefully we can continue with these times. Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella —————— Gisella Gruber Manager, Operations Support, ALAC-At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: gisella.gruber(a)icann.org<mailto:gisella.gruber@icann.org> Tel: +44 7545 334 360<tel:+44%207545%20334360> Skype ID: gisella.gw[gisella.gw]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gisella.gw&d=DwMFaQ&c=F…> One World, One Internet

2 1

Re: [ALAC] 2018 ALAC Monthly Call schedule for the rest of the year
by Vanda Scartezini April 16, 2018

April 16, 2018

I believe is the best we can do to allow all regions to have a call in a comfortable time. Best to all. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ALAC <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 at 10:55 To: 'ALAC List' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] 2018 ALAC Monthly Call schedule for the rest of the year Dear All, Please find attached a schedule for the 2018 ALAC Monthly calls for the rest of the year, to include corresponding local times across the time zones (regions observing DST taken into account). Please confirm whether you see any major issue with any of the dates & times suggested. Note the times of 04:00, 12:00 and 21:00 UTC were established a while back. These times were the result of a Doodle poll. By rotating, we all share the pain with some inconvenient times. Hopefully we can continue with these times. Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella —————— Gisella Gruber Manager, Operations Support, ALAC-At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: gisella.gruber(a)icann.org<mailto:gisella.gruber@icann.org> Tel: +44 7545 334 360<tel:+44%207545%20334360> Skype ID: gisella.gw[gisella.gw]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gisella.gw&d=DwMFaQ&c=F…> One World, One Internet

1 0

URGENT: Community Onboarding Program
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2018

April 13, 2018

There will be a Community Onboarding Program at ICANN62 in Panama. We have a choice of having ONE mentee and ONE mentor (both of whom will receive travel support), or TWO mentees and One mentor who is already funded to attend the meeting. I am asking each RALO Chair, in consultation with their RALO leadership team and their three ALAC Members to identify possible mentees and mentors. This is a Policy Meeting, so mentees should have a good grasp of ICANN already, and be prepared to participate and learn from all of the discussions going on. The Mentor should be someone who is prepared to spend time with the mentees and help them understand what is happening. A with the COB program last time, the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee will make the selections. To be clear, I am looking for from each RALO Chair, sent to me and staff: 1. A preference for whether we should have 2 mentees and an already funded mentor, or one mentee and a mentor who will be funded to attend just as a mentor. If we select the former, we need to be really sure the mentor will take the responsibility seriously. A person dedicated to that task may take it more seriously, but that implies just one mentee. 2. Suggestions for good mentee(s) 3. Suggestions for good mentors, both already funded and not yet funded. 4. In all cases, there should be a brief background and/or rationale if the people are not very well known to us. And please brief your AASC members on your candidates (see https://community.icann.org/x/VwebAw for membership list). You should verify with anyone you are suggesting that they are able to travel to the Panama meeting. For the record, at ICANN 61, we had two COB mentees, one from APRALO and one from LACRALO. The deadline for submission of names is Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Alan

2 1

Community OnBoarding Program
by Alan Greenberg April 12, 2018

April 12, 2018

We never got to this on the meeting today. I have asked a qualifying question about whether we can have 2 mentees (and one already funded mentor) or only 1 mentee and 1 mentor as prescribed in the program. Hopefully we will have an answer tomorrow and can decide how to proceed. Alan

2 1

Fwd: [fin-comm] Reserve Fund replenishment: public comment period closes on 25 April
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 12, 2018

April 12, 2018

Dear all, The public comment period is close to the end in this very important topic. I hope you are able to comment on the relevant issues for the At-Large community. Kind regards León Enviado desde mi iPhone Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 12 de abril de 2018, 11:08:08 a. m. CDT > Para: community-finance <community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org> > Cc: BFC <fin-comm(a)icann.org>, Shani Quidwai <shani.quidwai(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [fin-comm] Reserve Fund replenishment: public comment period closes on 25 April > > Dear all, > Just a quick reminder that the public comment period on the suggested approach to replenish the Reserve Fund closes in 13 days on the 25th of April. We look forward to a lot of comment and input on this important topic. See below the link to the public comment page. > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06… > > Thank you. > > Best, > > Xavier > > Xavier Calvez > ICANN – SVP & CFO > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > Phone: 310-301-5838 > Mobile: 805-312-0052 > Fax: 310-957-2348 > > _______________________________________________ > fin-comm mailing list > fin-comm(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/fin-comm

1 0

Update on GDPR and FAQs
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 11, 2018

April 11, 2018

Dear all, A blog post with updates on data protection and privacy issues, in relation to GDPR, and some FAQs have been posted by Göran in a new blog post at ICANN’s blog. You can read the post here https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-issues-update-an-ic… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-issues-update-an-ic…> I hope this information is useful for many in this list. Best regards, León

2 1

Fwd: Fwd: [DC] IGF Call for Issues: Shaping the 2018 Agenda
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond April 11, 2018

April 11, 2018

Hi everyone, a kind reminder that this Friday is the deadline for the IGF's call for issues. If your RALO has submitted a CROP request for IGF 2018, it should make sure that the issue it wants to base its session on, is addressed at the IGF. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [DC] IGF Call for Issues: Shaping the 2018 Agenda Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:05:03 +0000 From: Eleonora Mazzucchi <eleonora.mazzucchi(a)un.org> To: dc(a)intgovforum.org <dc(a)intgovforum.org>, bp_cybersec_2016(a)intgovforum.org <bp_cybersec_2016(a)intgovforum.org>, bp_gender(a)intgovforum.org <bp_gender(a)intgovforum.org>, bpf-localcontent(a)intgovforum.org <bpf-localcontent(a)intgovforum.org>, outreach_com_2015(a)intgovforum.org <outreach_com_2015(a)intgovforum.org> Dear All, As the IGF starts to shape its programme for the 2018 cycle, we would like to invite *all stakeholders* to participate in a first-ever*call for issues*. We are looking for the community’s suggestions on what *broad Internet governance topics*, and the *issues within those topics,* should be discussed this year. You can let us know what you think by filling out the following form by *Friday April 13, noon UTC*: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-call-for-issues# A *background note* on the call has also been published: http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/6037… Please distribute this widely throughout your networks! We look forward to your input. Best regards, the IGF Secretariat Team

1 0

Fwd: [Accred-Model] Is this a listserv?
by Holly Raiche April 10, 2018

April 10, 2018

Folks It looks as if this is the mechanism for consultation on an accreditation model. Clearly,not your normal PDP style consultation, but in the circumstances, I think this seems to be the ad hoc way forward. While we can raise this in other fora, I suspect this will be what we have to watch. I’ll keep watching and letting people know where this is headed. I think my biggest question - is this how ICANN will decide issues in the future/when issues are as urgent as this one? Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Accred-Model] Is this a listserv? > Date: 10 April 2018 7:19:50 am AEST > To: "accred-model(a)icann.org" <accred-model(a)icann.org> > > Hello everyone, > > This email is being sent to confirm that this listserv is a publicly-archived mailing list, through which interested community members may continue discussions about developing a workable accreditation and access model. A link to the mailing list archives as well as the recording and relevant transcripts from the Friday call have been included in the “Community Discussions” section of this page on the ICANN website: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdpr-legal-analysis-2017-11-17-en#dis…. As noted on that page, please continue to share news of and updates on all community work regarding data protection and privacy issues. > > If you do not wish to remain on this mailing list, or if there are other community members who are interested in signing up, please send an email to admin-accred-model(a)icann.org. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > From: Accred-Model <accred-model-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> > Date: Monday, April 9, 2018 at 02:32 > To: "accred-model(a)icann.org" <accred-model(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Accred-Model] Is this a listserv? > > Hi, > > If this is a list serv, please add me. Thank you. > > Lori > > Lori Schulman > Senior Director, Internet Policy > International Trademark Association > 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 > Washington DC, USA > +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman > www.inta.org[inta.org] > > > Find us on: Twitter[twitter.com] LinkedIn[linkedin.com] Facebook[facebook.com] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accred-Model mailing list > Accred-Model(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accred-model

1 0

ALAC Comment on IPC/BC Accreditation & Access Model for Non-Public Data
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 9, 2018

April 9, 2018

Dear All, This is to let you know that a workspace on the IPC/BC Accreditation & Access Model for Non-Public Data<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=84213851> has now gone live. The wiki workspace for this public comment is https://community.icann.org/x/WwAFBQ. All pertinent resources can also be found there. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<http://www.twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [ignature_692844728]

1 0