So I looked at the details laid out by Goran.  If you sat thru the EWG, it would, as Yogi Berra is reputed to have said; 'de ja vu all over again'.  Because it parses - as did the EWG! -  and reformats the very arguments used in deciding for 2-tiered access.  Which seems now to be the ascendant model for a new RDDS, even as it recognizes a distributed data model with separate data controllers. What the EWG favoured for reporting is essentially,  Goran's Model 2.

First of all it is just too rich for my blood for ICANN org to say "ICANN Org acknowledges that it is either expressed or implied in all of ICANN Org’s agreements that the contracted party must comply with all applicable laws" . If so, why the subterfuge of evasions, collusions and work-arounds inherent to the Procedures for Handling WHOIS Conflicts and the exemptions that must be applied for and granted? Maybe they will now accept my declarations pertaining; it is nothing more than make work for lawyers. 

Secondly, I cannot see the rationale for different data retention period for the models. 

So now, the argumentative parts:

It is clear that Model 3 would fix every data privacy/protection jurisdictional requirement; safe and easy to implement. No, it isn't just GDPR that has DP laws. There are others around the world inspired by GDPR and its reciprocity language for data transfer that this solution would neatly address. Unless of course the thinking is they don't count.   

It is easy to make the argument that the WHOIS dataset could be collected legally under colour of the GDPR calls 'legitimate interests' of the registrar and indeed be shared with ICANN.  I don't so much see that as the major hurdle.  The real hurdle to overcome is the declaration by WP29 that in context of the domain name transaction, a registrant cannot be said to have 'freely given' personal data for the transaction if, by not so giving, it means the domain is not acquired.

My advice. Obfuscate and equivocate no further. We are yet to see a defined policy in one place. Here's an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone; provide guidance and say from the preponderance of facts and given due consideration, ICANN org is for Model 2. Bam. Policy and prose declared one shot in one place, the end.

-Carlton

-Carlton 


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 11:36 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In my mind, there is no question that we need to respond.

The models are NOT what I was expecting, but that is not particularly relevant at this point. ICANN's challenge is to attempt to saitisfy data commissioners, who will not likely tell us ahead of time that they agree with us or not, But to do that while to the extent prossible, maintaining WHOIS so it can at least partially satisfy the ongoing important uses of WHOIS, particularly with respect to fighting DNS abuse and malicious activities.

So for example, Model 3 certainly satisfies privacy concerns (although we could endlessly debate whether the expiration date is private information or not), but it shuts down virtually all other uses of WHOIS (including trade mark protection and the UDRP) and I find including it as one of the proposed models rather ludicrous. It is certainly easy to implement. And cheap.

Alan


At 14/01/2018 03:24 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:

So you do support responding - whatever it is called?

Thanks

Holly
On 15 Jan 2018, at 7:15 am, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:

Yes Holly
It is exactly what I was pointing out.
SeB


Le 14 janv. 2018 à 20:35, Holly Raiche < h.raiche@internode.on.net> a écrit :

Hi Sebastian

I did read the words.  But seriously, he is asking for a response - whatever it is  called.  And given the importance of the issue, we should respond - whatever we call it.

Holly
On 15 Jan 2018, at 3:05 am, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:

No comment but feedback ;)
"To help inform this, please provide your feedback by 29 January 2018. Please send your feedback to gdpr@icann.org. »
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models
SeB

Le 14 janv. 2018 à 16:39, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn@gmail.com > a écrit :

Hi Holly
Interesting you mentioned this issue, two things to share with you

1.  NCUC did a session at the IGF and curious if anyone followed their tread. they had a good google doc on the issues
2. NARALO is having monthly hot topics during the second half of our monthly membership calls. I was thinking of this issue as a topic for March since I have Cybersecurity as the February topic.   I will need someone to level set the issue.  We had Net Neutrality for January

Glenn

Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn@gmail.com
skype  gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche < h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@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+(ALAC)


_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@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+(ALAC)

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
         1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:VKdvj5FaSMKqurXWxPSs+5KrD7bDD/z8Moc1vJY/5HGcetDlA7ssVCV/YElAUh7SGN24GFL4MjoTHmpx97pl9ljfUuFYftyzmxdiPED3xH0Yuhq0n312NRn8xUkI1sHN
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:
         jEucbbUatzmeUElwm8qHyl9PflMj0MX5zDILXM3lJZqNG+Qw6mRWfuvCa7BJkfZPBvWUFPdAfb+KZZ6q9cvWmtDVfaoxUVOj39PuvHHusgWHqVhxcOuKs+OgEvaoDljUn0N5yfBbgrkmusOJV/r0yA==

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@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+(ALAC )

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@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+(ALAC)