- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALAC Response to 'Compliance Models'
by Holly Raiche Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

Folks Evan has reminded me (and Alan) that we need to vote on a final response to the Compliance Models. My final entry is my suggested draft for consideration by all. I listened to the webinar Steve Bianco organised (and Goran Marby participated in) and have adjusted what was said. So if people are happy - Evin, could you put the text either in the first or final draft so that there is something to vote on Thanks Holly

5 5

TODAY/URGENT: Extension request for GDPR Model Comments
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

To At-Large Staff: In light of the importance of the GDPR issue, and the ongoing discussion within At-Large and elsewhere in ICANN, I request an extension of no less than 10 days for submission of comments. Please confirm that this extension has formally been requested. Alan Greenberg Chair, ALAC

1 0

New gTLD Round Policy Development Process (PDP) - Geographical names (Work Track 5) - Interim briefing to At Large
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 24, 2018

Jan. 24, 2018

Dear All, On behalf of Christopher Wilkinson, the appointed ALAC ‘Co-Lead’ for Work Track 5, please see his message and attached report on the topic of Work Track 5 Geographical Names in the DNS. . Please send your comments to this list and Christopher. Kind regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community [Begin forwarded message] Dear Friends and Colleagues: As you may recall, ICANN is currently working on the policies relating to the eventual launch of a further round of applications for new generic top level domains (TLDs) As part of this process, the PDP has recently created a dedicated sub group (‘work track 5’) to address the question of geographical terms in the top level name space (DNS) This is my first briefing note to At Large, as the appointed ALAC ‘Co-Lead’ for Work Track 5, - as provided for in the WT5 ToR. Note that the other three Co-Leads have been appointed by ccNSO, GAC and GNSO. The principal outcome to date is the agreed Terms of Reference approved by the WT5 conference call on 17 January 2018. The document is attached (.pdf). The principal features of this decision are as follows: - the Terms of Reference of the work track on geographical terms follow closely the structure and organisation of the GNSO PDP Guidelines - the option of working as a Cross Community Working Group, as was initially proposed, has been rejected in favour of the GNSO PDP policies and procedures - no decision has been taken regarding the definition of geographical terms relevant to the DNS, That has been deferred to the next phase of the discussion, which has already begun. Accordingly, I would encourage At Large members to participate actively in this working group (WT5) because it has the potential to influence decisively the scope for individual Internet users, world-wide, to exercise their rights and interests in their geographical terms of all kinds in the future. Further background information about this subject is available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JnqiUKHd9_aTLFMFQ0Rmft8GRUL7JSvGF7qS2xj…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> I would be glad to receive any comments and answer any questions on this matter. Regards Christopher Wilkinson ALAC Co-Lead GNSO new gTLD PDP, WT5 (Geo-Names) cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>

1 0

Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 23, 2018

Jan. 23, 2018

You will recall that we decided to have mailing lists to replace the defunct New gTLD and Registration Services WGs, and to expand the ICANN Evolution WG to include all policy matters. To the extent that telecomnferences or webinars are required, they would be held under the auspices of the renamed ICANN Evolution Group. Each mailing list will also need someone to oversee it. I am glad to announce that Jonathan Zuck, who recently joined At-Large (having been a long time member of the GNSO Business Consituency, but has had a life-change and is now leading a non-profit) has volunteered to co-lead the WG and lead the New gTLD mailing list. Jonathan has been a major contributor to many ICANN efforts over the years and I am delighted that he has volunteered to take up these roles. Alan

6 5

Fwd: Join a 24-Jan Conversation on WHOIS and Compliance with EU's GDPR and ICANN Contracts
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 22, 2018

Jan. 22, 2018

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 17:27:01 +0000 If you cannot view this email correctly, please <http://cr.perkinscoie.com/collect/click.aspx?u=okCnMhIBMSuY7zcQkoxZ2g==&rh=…>view it online Join Us on Wednesday for a Conversation on Access to WHOIS and Compliance with EUâs GDPR and ICANN Contracts Please join us for an important conversation about proposed models for compliance with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ICANNâs contracts and the impact on WHOIS. ICANNâs Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies are hosting the event, with support from Perkins Coie LLP. The session will be hosted concurrently in Washington, D.C. and Brussels to support in-person participation. Remote participation will also be available via Adobe Connect (link to be provided). The event is openplease forward thiis invitation to interested parties with your recommendation to attend. Kindly <http://cr.perkinscoie.com/collect/click.aspx?u=jRYOrR8N39SIMxj06pznWkcPzEV/…>RSVP by close of business Monday, January 22, 2018. Please note your method of participation. We look forward to your participation and to a lively discussion. Event Details Wednesday, January 24, 2018 9:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. U.S. Eastern Time< (14:00 18:00 UTC) Online Adobe Connect Details coming soon. <http://cr.perkinscoie.com/collect/click.aspx?u=jRYOrR8N39Q/gA4zEWRS0YfK93PK…>Washington, D.C. 700 13th Street, NW, Suite 600 (Offices of Perkins Coie) Brussels Location TBD

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Internal] Wikispace Created - Re: [Ext] ALAC comments on ICANN models for GDPR
by Holly Raiche Jan. 20, 2018

Jan. 20, 2018

Olivier My fault - it should be on whatever list is appropriate. PLEASE share it with EURALO or whomever. The problem was lack of time and I felt we had to do something - ‘feedback’ is due 29 Jan - and I wanted to start an open discussion . Aida, Vanda, Carlton and Alan have already made comments by email - my hope, by asking for a wiki - was to centralise the discussion. And now that Jonathan has put his hand up, he can take it from here. I”ll put the stuff I said on the wiki, just to start the discussion. And please scold me - my fault. But then please, get EURALO to comment as well Holly On 20 Jan 2018, at 11:27 am, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > now I really do not know what to make of this. Once again we have a substantial policy discussion on the ALAC Internal List and now an announcement of a WIKI workspace being created. > As a result, I do not know if I can share this with my EURALO constituents - and the debate is yet again within the 15 member ALAC & whomever is on the ALAC Internal List. Not very inclusive, is it? In the meantime, the open At-Large mailing list is seldom used for any policy discussion of value, even though whenever someone sends such a discussion out, there is movement on the list. > > Meanwhile, announcements of RALO appointees, whether for Onboarding or Leadership Training, are also made on the ALAC Internal, so I receive emails from interested parties and applicants asking me what is going on, up to several days after a choice and an announcement are made. > > Why so much hiding? > > Olivier > > > On 19/01/2018 15:15, Evin Erdogdu wrote: >> Hello Holly and All, >> >> Please see the created wiki workspace for Data Protection and Privacy Update - Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models. >> >> Feedback is requested by 29 January 2018. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Evin >> >> From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> >> Date: Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 6:41 PM >> To: ALAC Internal List <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >> Subject: [Ext] ALAC comments on ICANN models for GDPR >> >> Folks >> >> >> First - we really need a wiki space on our policy page so that we can collect any comments on ICANN’s models responding to the GDPR. At the moment, Alan, Carlton, Vanda and Aida have all made comments - but they are not in one place and should be. “Feedback’ is due 29 January, so if ALAC is to say something - we should all agree on what that is - and it should all be in one place so everyone can view all of the comments together. >> >> Next, I’ve finally had a good look at the document and offer the following comments: >> >> General comments: >> Any model adopted should, as much as possible, be close to a position that everyone is comfortable with. The reality is that actually changing the current RDS policy (i.e., requirements in the RAA on the collection and public access to registration data) will take at least another couple of years (The current RDS WG is only at the first stage of the policy change needed - 18 months after it started at least). So this ‘interim’ model will be used for a significant amount of time before it is replaced. Further, if we are calling on registrars/registries to adopt a model now, it should be as close as possible to the ultimate solution so that registries/registrars don’t have to change their systems yet again. ( I recognise this is called an ‘interim’ solution: the reality - it will be a long ‘interim’) >> A related point - any policy adopted should be one that applies globally. There should not be a policy that gives one part of the globe a level of privacy protection that does not apply elsewhere. And on a more practical note, how does a registrar or registry be sure of whether all of their customers live in an area that attracts one level of privacy protection or another. >> The basis of any model adopted should be on privacy principles. Yes, the GDPR is the most stringent, but we need to recognise that data protection legislation has been enacted globally, based on fundamental OECD principles. Those principles include the direction that data collectors must only collect information - particularly personal information - that is necessary for them to carry out their function(s), that the data collector must - up front - tell the data subject the purposes to which the data will be put and the circumstances in which defined others will access the data. >> The final document should use the language of SSAC51 - for the data itself, the service and the protocol. Using ‘Whois’ leads to confusion as to what is being referred to >> Specific comments: >> Approach- Clause 6: Agree with the statement that all of the compliance models are based on tiered access - and agree with tiered access >> Commonalities - Clause 1: I am not sure we should agree with the statement that registrars may collect (but not necessarily publish) all of the personal data elements currently in the Thick registration data. This is an issue that the RDS WG is working through - to determine what information is actually necessary for the the registrars/registries to carry out their functions. However, I accept that this may be too hard for anyone outside of the WG discussions to come to final agreement upon >> Purpose Description - Purpose of Whois. This text confuses two things. The purpose of ICANN is about coordination, stability etc of the Internet’s unique identifier system. But the purpose that is critical here is the purpose of the collector - the registrar. So the tests for whether the information should be collected is whether the registrar needs the information to carry out their functions >> Models - General.Only Models 2B and Model 3 apply globally. On that basis, reject Models 1 and 2A >> Model 2A vs Model 3: >> In Model 2A - the name of the registrant is only displayed with the consent of the registrant (whether a natural person or company), access to non-public data would be to a defined set of third party requesters under a formal accreditation/certification program (this could include law enforcement agencies, certified intellectual lawyers, etc based on pre-defined criteria and as part of a formal accreditation process. As an interim measure, self certification could be used as part of an interim mechanism >> In model 3, the registrant’s name would be displayed (with or without consent), and not publish personal data. However, this would require assessment on a field by field basis as to whether personal data would be included. There would be a stricter regime for access - only under applicable law and subject to due process requirements such as under subpoena or oner judicial order. >> My recommendation: Go with either Model 2B or 3. Model 3 is the stricter, but appears to be a bit complex in its assessment against each field. Certainly there are very tight controls on access to the data. Model 2A has the possibility of more access - based on pre-determined requirements/accreditation. The timeframe for data retention under both is also different (life of registration +1 year for 2A, and +60 days) >> >> My personal choice - Model 2A - as long as there is a tight accreditation process, and tightly defined criteria for who (already accredited) gets access to personal information in what circumstances. But this is for ALAC members to decide. >> >> Holly >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC-Internal mailing list >> ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal >> >> ALAC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >> At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > >

2 1

Community Feedback on Proposed models for RDS - by the end of January
by Holly Raiche Jan. 16, 2018

Jan. 16, 2018

Folks Two days ago, Goran’s blog posted ICANN’s proposed there models for addressing the issue of RDS information and the EU Data Protection rules. According to the blog, 'community input' is being sought - by the end of January. Given the significance of this discussion on the information that registries/registrars collect and display, I am assuming that ALAC will be making comments? We should, at the least, have a page on the wiki for comments??? Holly

6 10

Please Review: Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 16, 2018

Jan. 16, 2018

Dear All, Please note that Sebastian Bachollet posted a draft statement on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Pro…>. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/gB1yB. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. This draft statement will likely be discussed during the upcoming ALAC call next week, and we will open the “Call for Comments” to the wider At-Large Community as per direction from the ALAC. 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_136694487]

1 0

v5 of the ICANN Stakeholder Analysis Tool - country analysis as well as regional analysis
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Dec. 21, 2017

Dec. 21, 2017

cc O&E sc, TTF, ALAC Working list Hello All, I have done a fifth version of the ICANN Stakeholder Analysis Tool which allows for the ability to search by country: - At-Large Representation - ccNSO membership - GAC Membership - The Number of Fellowships and also do an regional or worldwide analysis on At-Large, ccNSO and GAC stakeholders . Screenshots attached. The Stakeholder Tool can be accessed at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ICANN+Stakeholder+Analysis+Tool If you investigate the Countries sheet, you can see the variations of country names that different ACs, SOs and the Fellowship Programme within ICANN use to represent the same country. There's also a Nextgen sheet that if someone is willing to volunteer to help enter the information. The Nextgen sheet is open for anyone to edit. Thoughts, comments appreciated. Dev Anand Teelucksingh At-Large member, Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society, http://ttcs.tt/

1 0

Empowered Community Action to appoint new director
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and following the decision of the ccNSO to appoint Nigel Roberts to replace Mike Silber occupying Board Seat 12 effective the end of ICANN63 (https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcement-2-08dec17-en.htm) I am notifying the Empowered Community Administration that I support this appointment. Alan

2 2