The deadline set was Friday, 20 April 2018 at 4PM UTC. At 20/04/2018 08:22 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
And, I would add, let everyone have a final chance to view the statements.
And Im not sure why it is too late - Evin said the deadline was the 20th
Holly
Begin forwarded message:
From: Holly Raiche <<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche@internode.on.net> Subject: Re: [Accred-Model] Comment - Alan Greenberg Date: 21 April 2018 9:52:53 am AEST To: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Please see what I have just done
On 21 Apr 2018, at 9:50 am, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@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 Jonathanâs 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 Jonathanâs response - and mine.
Holly
On 21 Apr 2018, at 8:20 am, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@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 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84213851/APWG-GDPR-Accreditationplancomments-5April2018-0001.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1524004586000&api=v2>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 <mailto:Accred-Model@icann.org>Accred-Model@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: <<mailto:ED1DF51241BD3343915D6F3ABE3B1724@CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>ED1DF51241BD3343915D6F3ABE3B1724@CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>