Thanks Tijani Jonathan’s comments are actually on the ALAC policy page. And after a careful reading, I can agree with most of what Jonathan said. My one concern - and I told him this - is that the whole process MUST start with the purpose question - NOT what the data has been used for in the past. In most privacy regimes, there are exceptions for law enforcement agencies - which can be more broadly drawn, so we can push for a more safe and secure Internet - but on the foundation of the data protection regime. In the end, I think that is where everyone will have to get to. It will just take time. Thank you for your kind thoughts - and for putting me on the capacity building list and for the webinar list. I really found the last one - indeed all the ones I have listened to - very helpful Holly On 22 Apr 2018, at 6:04 pm, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
Good morning Holly,
I was looking for the link to see what Jonathan wrote. I wanted to support your position since it’s exactly mine. But I wanted to see Jonathan’ comment to better understand the discussion.
As for the capacity building WG, I will ask staff to be sure you are subscribed. The Capacity Building Working Group link is https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Capacity+Building+Worki... In the bottom of the page, you find a table with both 2017 and 2018 program (you can switch from one to the other by clicking on the right space). I also attach the 2018 program for your convenience. Have a nice evening <2018_Topics_Proposed_Selected.xlsx>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 20 avr. 2018 à 23:32, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> a écrit :
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
<NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement Final.docx>
On 21 Apr 2018, at 8:20 am, Alan Greenberg <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 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.