As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week. Alan
This correspondence from SSAC is also related to EPDP: SSAC2018-21: Input to EPDP Team <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-21-24aug18-en.pdf> вт, 28 авг. 2018 г. в 9:27, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
-- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET
<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
Thank you Alan and Andrei for the updates. Please excuse my newcomer confusion - not meaning to stir the pot here - but I'm wondering how close At-Large's/ALAC's position is to that of the SSAC? Do we agree with their report 100%? My initial thinking is that representing users, we might want a somewhat more diversified approach than that offered by the SSAC, ensuring full GDPR compliance (I'm happy to elaborate if needed). Also, would it make sense to take on the positions of other communities in our statement, if only for the sake of future consensus building? As already briefly mentioned to Alan, I'm happy to help with the drafting if needed. Best to all, Joanna Kulesza -------------------------------- Joanna Kulesza, PhD assistant professor of international law and Internet governance Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz Kopcinskiego Street 8/12, 90-232 Lodz, Poland publications: https://unilodz.academia.edu/JoannaKulesza/ website: https://pl.linkedin.com/in/kuleszajoanna wt., 28 sie 2018 o 08:27 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> napisał(a):
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. If that is the point we want to make. Marita On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is all that different from endorsing the entire paper when you start examining the rationales, but I would be happy to accept that if we can get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process. Alan At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.
I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis.
Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
If that is the point we want to make.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>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+(ALA...)
Thanks Marita I like your wording. Ys it is a big document and I like your wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse. Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is all that different from endorsing the entire paper when you start examining the rationales, but I would be happy to accept that if we can get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process.
Alan
At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.
I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis.
Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
If that is the point we want to make.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA... )
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+(ALA...)
So in my day job I was one of the GDPR implementation leads and we've just wrapped up the initial work. We were assisted by an external consultancy. That said, if anything SSAC did not go far enough. ICANN has a contractual basis for data collection related to the contracts it signs. The claim of legitimate interest is stretched well beyond it's intent and in fact the EU has opined on the balancing test required. My understanding of the balancing test would call into question even legitimate law enforcement requests where the PII was of an individual or organization known to be persecuted. In that case, couldn't exert legitimate interest if it fails the balance test. I am sympathetic to the needs of security researchers and law enforcement but ICANN data collection does not exist for them, though it is used by them. The proper scope is identifying what data SSAC and RSAC need and use to advance ICANN's mission. While rationale for data collection is one pain point, another that my org discover was in terms of data transfer/processing. Legitimate interest is not recognized rationale there. Moreover as a US nonprofit ICANN is ineligible for PrivacyShield which could give it some cover. Finally and perhaps to make matters worse, the technical spec instruct registries on data collection. I confess that at this point I'm not sure whether ICANN is acting as a data controller or a data processor. In a sense, the registries are data controllers and ICANN is the data processor, thrusting the onus of compliance upon registries. I'm at the limits of my GDPR for the day so additional thoughts would be welcome. Best, John From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:17 PM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input Thanks Marita I like your wording. Ys it is a big document and I like your wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse. Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is all that different from endorsing the entire paper when you start examining the rationales, but I would be happy to accept that if we can get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process. Alan At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote: Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. If that is the point we want to make. Marita On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week. Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL AC)> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C ) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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+(ALA C)
Thanks John It’s really helpful hearing from someone who has to implement GDPR - and can bring those insights to the table. I think we all struggle to work through - first - whether ICANN is the data processor or controller, and from there, what information is actually required by whom, used by whom and accessed by whom. If there were an easy answer, I think we’d be there. But none of this is easy, so this insight is really welcome. Thank you Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 10:37 am, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
So in my day job I was one of the GDPR implementation leads and we’ve just wrapped up the initial work. We were assisted by an external consultancy. That said, if anything SSAC did not go far enough.
ICANN has a contractual basis for data collection related to the contracts it signs. The claim of legitimate interest is stretched well beyond it’s intent and in fact the EU has opined on the balancing test required. My understanding of the balancing test would call into question even legitimate law enforcement requests where the PII was of an individual or organization known to be persecuted. In that case, couldn’t exert legitimate interest if it fails the balance test.
I am sympathetic to the needs of security researchers and law enforcement but ICANN data collection does not exist for them, though it is used by them. The proper scope is identifying what data SSAC and RSAC need and use to advance ICANN’s mission.
While rationale for data collection is one pain point, another that my org discover was in terms of data transfer/processing. Legitimate interest is not recognized rationale there. Moreover as a US nonprofit ICANN is ineligible for PrivacyShield which could give it some cover.
Finally and perhaps to make matters worse, the technical spec instruct registries on data collection. I confess that at this point I’m not sure whether ICANN is acting as a data controller or a data processor. In a sense, the registries are data controllers and ICANN is the data processor, thrusting the onus of compliance upon registries.
I’m at the limits of my GDPR for the day so additional thoughts would be welcome.
Best,
John
From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:17 PM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
Thanks Marita
I like your wording. Ys it is a big document and I like your wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is all that different from endorsing the entire paper when you start examining the rationales, but I would be happy to accept that if we can get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process.
Alan
At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.
I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis.
Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
If that is the point we want to make.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found athttps://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA... ) _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
I'm not at all sure that our situation is comparable. It is certainly far more atypical than a standard business or nonprofit. Most people who have more knowledge of GDPR that I do deem ICANN to ba a controller, although perhaps a join controller. But an unusual one in that unlike most controllers, we do not actually have custody of the data. Regarding where we are going on this, I am not prepared to roll over an just play dead. I think we need to put up a fight to get where we need to be. For instance, there are those who are saying (and using the data commissioners words to "prove" it, that we must not consider any needs other than our own. I differ on this. ICANN is not just responsible for making sure that the DNS records are orderly. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the DNS is usable and trusted. Although the ICANN mission does not use that word in this context, I believe that an untrusted DNS may as well not be there and be replaced with some other mechanism. GPDR DOES allow us to consider the needs of others. Article 6.1(f) explicitly says so. It is not unlimited but it is there and should allow us to make the case for ensuring that law enforcement and cyber security workers can get access. That is part of our job in this game. And like some of the SAC101 recommendations, we need to not only make sure that the data is there, and accessible, but that it can in practice be accessed (such as recommendations on RDAP and rate limiting). The Temporary Spec is overreaching in that it says we are responsible for the entire framework for such activities and that is nonsense, but I believe that we do have a responsibility to ensure that we support that framework and ensure that some types of data are available. If that is not why we are on the EPDP, then I hope someone will tell me that so I can save myself an awful lot of work. Alan At 28/08/2018 08:44 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Thanks John
It's really helpful hearing from someone who has to implement GDPR - and can bring those insights to the table.
I think we all struggle to work through - first - whether ICANN is the data processor or controller, and from there, what information is actually required by whom, used by whom and accessed by whom.
If there were an easy answer, I think we'd be there. But none of this is easy, so this insight is really welcome.
Thank you
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 10:37 am, John Laprise <<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
So in my day job I was one of the GDPR implementation leads and we've just wrapped up the initial work. We were assisted by an external consultancy. That said, if anything SSAC did not go far enough.
ICANN has a contractual basis for data collection related to the contracts it signs. The claim of legitimate interest is stretched well beyond it's intent and in fact the EU has opined on the balancing test required. My understanding of the balancing test would call into question even legitimate law enforcement requests where the PII was of an individual or organization known to be persecuted. In that case, couldn't exert legitimate interest if it fails the balance test.
I am sympathetic to the needs of security researchers and law enforcement but ICANN data collection does not exist for them, though it is used by them. The proper scope is identifying what data SSAC and RSAC need and use to advance ICANN's mission.
While rationale for data collection is one pain point, another that my org discover was in terms of data transfer/processing. Legitimate interest is not recognized rationale there. Moreover as a US nonprofit ICANN is ineligible for PrivacyShield which could give it some cover.
Finally and perhaps to make matters worse, the technical spec instruct registries on data collection. I confess that at this point I'm not sure whether ICANN is acting as a data controller or a data processor. In a sense, the registries are data controllers and ICANN is the data processor, thrusting the onus of compliance upon registries.
I'm at the limits of my GDPR for the day so additional thoughts would be welcome.
Best,
John
From: ALAC <<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:17 PM To: Marita Moll <<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>mmoll@ca.inter.net>; ALAC <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
Thanks Marita
I like your wording. Ys it is a big document and I like your wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is all that different from endorsing the entire paper when you start examining the rationales, but I would be happy to accept that if we can get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process. Alan
At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. If that is the point we want to make.
Marita On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at<https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>https<https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online:
<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki:
<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC )
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Agree From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:34 PM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> Cc: ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input I'm not at all sure that our situation is comparable. It is certainly far more atypical than a standard business or nonprofit. Most people who have more knowledge of GDPR that I do deem ICANN to ba a controller, although perhaps a join controller. But an unusual one in that unlike most controllers, we do not actually have custody of the data. Regarding where we are going on this, I am not prepared to roll over an just play dead. I think we need to put up a fight to get where we need to be. For instance, there are those who are saying (and using the data commissioners words to "prove" it, that we must not consider any needs other than our own. I differ on this. ICANN is not just responsible for making sure that the DNS records are orderly. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the DNS is usable and trusted. Although the ICANN mission does not use that word in this context, I believe that an untrusted DNS may as well not be there and be replaced with some other mechanism. GPDR DOES allow us to consider the needs of others. Article 6.1(f) explicitly says so. It is not unlimited but it is there and should allow us to make the case for ensuring that law enforcement and cyber security workers can get access. That is part of our job in this game. And like some of the SAC101 recommendations, we need to not only make sure that the data is there, and accessible, but that it can in practice be accessed (such as recommendations on RDAP and rate limiting). The Temporary Spec is overreaching in that it says we are responsible for the entire framework for such activities and that is nonsense, but I believe that we do have a responsibility to ensure that we support that framework and ensure that some types of data are available. If that is not why we are on the EPDP, then I hope someone will tell me that so I can save myself an awful lot of work. Alan At 28/08/2018 08:44 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: Thanks John It?s really helpful hearing from someone who has to implement GDPR - and can bring those insights to the table. I think we all struggle to work through - first - whether ICANN is the data processor or controller, and from there, what information is actually required by whom, used by whom and accessed by whom. If there were an easy answer, I think we?d be there. But none of this is easy, so this insight is really welcome. Thank you Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 10:37 am, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: So in my day job I was one of the GDPR implementation leads and we?ve just wrapped up the initial work. We were assisted by an external consultancy. That said, if anything SSAC did not go far enough. ICANN has a contractual basis for data collection related to the contracts it signs. The claim of legitimate interest is stretched well beyond it?s intent and in fact the EU has opined on the balancing test required. My understanding of the balancing test would call into question even legitimate law enforcement requests where the PII was of an individual or organization known to be persecuted. In that case, couldn?t exert legitimate interest if it fails the balance test. I am sympathetic to the needs of security researchers and law enforcement but ICANN data collection does not exist for them, though it is used by them. The proper scope is identifying what data SSAC and RSAC need and use to advance ICANN?s mission. While rationale for data collection is one pain point, another that my org discover was in terms of data transfer/processing. Legitimate interest is not recognized rationale there. Moreover as a US nonprofit ICANN is ineligible for PrivacyShield which could give it some cover. Finally and perhaps to make matters worse, the technical spec instruct registries on data collection. I confess that at this point I?m not sure whether ICANN is acting as a data controller or a data processor. In a sense, the registries are data controllers and ICANN is the data processor, thrusting the onus of compliance upon registries. I?m at the limits of my GDPR for the day so additional thoughts would be welcome. Best, John From: ALAC < alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:17 PM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; ALAC < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input Thanks Marita I like your wording. Ys it is a big document and I like your wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse. Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is all that different from endorsing the entire paper when you start examining the rationales, but I would be happy to accept that if we can get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process. Alan At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote: Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. If that is the point we want to make. Marita On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found athttps<https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ> ://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ<https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>. The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week. Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... ) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 03:35 Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I'm not at all sure that our situation is comparable. It is certainly far more atypical than a standard business or nonprofit.
Most people who have more knowledge of GDPR that I do deem ICANN to ba a controller, although perhaps a join controller. But an unusual one in that unlike most controllers, we do not actually have custody of the data.
Regarding where we are going on this, I am not prepared to roll over an just play dead. I think we need to put up a fight to get where we need to be. For instance, there are those who are saying (and using the data commissioners words to "prove" it, that we must not consider any needs other than our own. I differ on this. ICANN is not just responsible for making sure that the DNS records are orderly. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the DNS is usable and trusted. Although the ICANN mission does not use that word in this context, I believe that an untrusted DNS may as well not be there and be replaced with some other mechanism. GPDR DOES allow us to consider the needs of others. Article 6.1(f) explicitly says so. It is not unlimited but it is there and should allow us to make the case for ensuring that law enforcement and cyber security workers can get access. That is part of our job in this game.
And like some of the SAC101 recommendations, we need to not only make sure that the data is there, and accessible, but that it can in practice be accessed (such as recommendations on RDAP and rate limiting).
SO: Agree
The Temporary Spec is overreaching in that it says we are responsible for the entire framework for such activities and that is nonsense,
SO: By "we" I believe that ICANN is referred here, my question to you then is if ICANN is not who else should responsible for that? (at least on high level basis) but I believe that we do have a responsibility to ensure that we support
that framework and ensure that some types of data are available.
SO: While I agree with the principle of support from ICANN, may I know who you believe should prepare the framework? Regards
If that is not why we are on the EPDP, then I hope someone will tell me that so I can save myself an awful lot of work.
Alan
At 28/08/2018 08:44 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Thanks John
It’s really helpful hearing from someone who has to implement GDPR - and can bring those insights to the table.
I think we all struggle to work through - first - whether ICANN is the data processor or controller, and from there, what information is actually required by whom, used by whom and accessed by whom.
* If there were an easy answer, I think we’d be there. But none of this is easy, so this insight is really welcome.*
Thank you
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 10:37 am, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
So in my day job I was one of the GDPR implementation leads and we’ve just wrapped up the initial work. We were assisted by an external consultancy. That said, if anything SSAC did not go far enough.
ICANN has a contractual basis for data collection related to the contracts it signs. The claim of legitimate interest is stretched well beyond it’s intent and in fact the EU has opined on the balancing test required. My understanding of the balancing test would call into question even legitimate law enforcement requests where the PII was of an individual or organization known to be persecuted. In that case, couldn’t exert legitimate interest if it fails the balance test.
I am sympathetic to the needs of security researchers and law enforcement but ICANN data collection does not exist for them, though it is used by them. The proper scope is identifying what data SSAC and RSAC need and use to advance ICANN’s mission.
While rationale for data collection is one pain point, another that my org discover was in terms of data transfer/processing. Legitimate interest is not recognized rationale there. Moreover as a US nonprofit ICANN is ineligible for PrivacyShield which could give it some cover.
Finally and perhaps to make matters worse, the technical spec instruct registries on data collection. I confess that at this point I’m not sure whether ICANN is acting as a data controller or a data processor. In a sense, the registries are data controllers and ICANN is the data processor, thrusting the onus of compliance upon registries.
I’m at the limits of my GDPR for the day so additional thoughts would be welcome.
Best,
John
*From:* ALAC < alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Holly Raiche *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:17 PM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; ALAC < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Cc:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
Thanks Marita
I like your wording. Ys it is a big document and I like your wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is all that different from endorsing the entire paper when you start examining the rationales, but I would be happy to accept that if we can get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process. Alan
At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. If that is the point we want to make.
Marita On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ> ://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>. The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online:
ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA... )
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
While ICANN's situation is unusual, GDPR doesn't care. The greatest benefit as a nonprofit is that ICANN can assert "legitimate interest" more readily than a for profit. However, as I mentioned, legitimate interest rests on a balancing test between the interests of a PII subject and the data controller. There are many cases where where individual interests outweigh ICANN's. On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 2:06 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 03:35 Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I'm not at all sure that our situation is comparable. It is certainly far more atypical than a standard business or nonprofit.
Most people who have more knowledge of GDPR that I do deem ICANN to ba a controller, although perhaps a join controller. But an unusual one in that unlike most controllers, we do not actually have custody of the data.
Regarding where we are going on this, I am not prepared to roll over an just play dead. I think we need to put up a fight to get where we need to be. For instance, there are those who are saying (and using the data commissioners words to "prove" it, that we must not consider any needs other than our own. I differ on this. ICANN is not just responsible for making sure that the DNS records are orderly. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the DNS is usable and trusted. Although the ICANN mission does not use that word in this context, I believe that an untrusted DNS may as well not be there and be replaced with some other mechanism. GPDR DOES allow us to consider the needs of others. Article 6.1(f) explicitly says so. It is not unlimited but it is there and should allow us to make the case for ensuring that law enforcement and cyber security workers can get access. That is part of our job in this game.
And like some of the SAC101 recommendations, we need to not only make sure that the data is there, and accessible, but that it can in practice be accessed (such as recommendations on RDAP and rate limiting).
SO: Agree
The Temporary Spec is overreaching in that it says we are responsible for the entire framework for such activities and that is nonsense,
SO: By "we" I believe that ICANN is referred here, my question to you then is if ICANN is not who else should responsible for that? (at least on high level basis)
but I believe that we do have a responsibility to ensure that we support
that framework and ensure that some types of data are available.
SO: While I agree with the principle of support from ICANN, may I know who you believe should prepare the framework?
Regards
If that is not why we are on the EPDP, then I hope someone will tell me that so I can save myself an awful lot of work.
Alan
At 28/08/2018 08:44 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Thanks John
It’s really helpful hearing from someone who has to implement GDPR - and can bring those insights to the table.
I think we all struggle to work through - first - whether ICANN is the data processor or controller, and from there, what information is actually required by whom, used by whom and accessed by whom.
* If there were an easy answer, I think we’d be there. But none of this is easy, so this insight is really welcome.*
Thank you
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 10:37 am, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
So in my day job I was one of the GDPR implementation leads and we’ve just wrapped up the initial work. We were assisted by an external consultancy. That said, if anything SSAC did not go far enough.
ICANN has a contractual basis for data collection related to the contracts it signs. The claim of legitimate interest is stretched well beyond it’s intent and in fact the EU has opined on the balancing test required. My understanding of the balancing test would call into question even legitimate law enforcement requests where the PII was of an individual or organization known to be persecuted. In that case, couldn’t exert legitimate interest if it fails the balance test.
I am sympathetic to the needs of security researchers and law enforcement but ICANN data collection does not exist for them, though it is used by them. The proper scope is identifying what data SSAC and RSAC need and use to advance ICANN’s mission.
While rationale for data collection is one pain point, another that my org discover was in terms of data transfer/processing. Legitimate interest is not recognized rationale there. Moreover as a US nonprofit ICANN is ineligible for PrivacyShield which could give it some cover.
Finally and perhaps to make matters worse, the technical spec instruct registries on data collection. I confess that at this point I’m not sure whether ICANN is acting as a data controller or a data processor. In a sense, the registries are data controllers and ICANN is the data processor, thrusting the onus of compliance upon registries.
I’m at the limits of my GDPR for the day so additional thoughts would be welcome.
Best,
John
*From:* ALAC < alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Holly Raiche *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:17 PM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; ALAC < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Cc:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
Thanks Marita
I like your wording. Ys it is a big document and I like your wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is all that different from endorsing the entire paper when you start examining the rationales, but I would be happy to accept that if we can get closure on it quickly. Time is our enemy in this overall EPDP process. Alan
At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. If that is the point we want to make.
Marita On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ> ://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ>. The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online:
ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA... )
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
The At-Large is well-advised to take SSAC publications seriously. For in regard to problem definition, analysis and recommendations to solution they are thorough, devoid of hysteria and exhibits an internal logic any sentient being can apply. A suggestion. SAC2018-17 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-17-26jun18-en.pdf> details the high-level recommendations as principles that the SSAC believes should guide ePDP deliberations. The SSAC say these recommendations are extracted from the SAC101 Advisory; in their own words, "*several of the recommendations are specifically designed as inputs to the ePDP*" then in construction and particularized further in SAC2018-17. I have read SAC101 publication and on balance of fact, so affirm. If you recall, this is the kind of approach some of us advised the ALAC should embrace to guide participation of At-Large representatives on the ePDP. One cannot now say that such a document - meaning an At-Large developed and ALAC-endorsed document - emerged from that lot of interventions. What I can say is the SSAC-enunciated principles look very much like those the rational mind of an At-Large participant would support. I would urge you reject this malignant At-Large propensity to re-invent the wheel. Endorse the principles as outlined in SAC2018-17 and save yourselves a bother without a redeemable quality. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.
I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis.
Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
If that is the point we want to make.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
Thanks Carlton I really like that suggestion - it is a document only of principles, but ones that ALAC clearly supports, and that fit well into our EPDP discussions and, because of the shortness of time, we can all agree on Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 9:16 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The At-Large is well-advised to take SSAC publications seriously. For in regard to problem definition, analysis and recommendations to solution they are thorough, devoid of hysteria and exhibits an internal logic any sentient being can apply.
A suggestion. SAC2018-17 details the high-level recommendations as principles that the SSAC believes should guide ePDP deliberations. The SSAC say these recommendations are extracted from the SAC101 Advisory; in their own words, "several of the recommendations are specifically designed as inputs to the ePDP" then in construction and particularized further in SAC2018-17.
I have read SAC101 publication and on balance of fact, so affirm. If you recall, this is the kind of approach some of us advised the ALAC should embrace to guide participation of At-Large representatives on the ePDP. One cannot now say that such a document - meaning an At-Large developed and ALAC-endorsed document - emerged from that lot of interventions.
What I can say is the SSAC-enunciated principles look very much like those the rational mind of an At-Large participant would support. I would urge you reject this malignant At-Large propensity to re-invent the wheel. Endorse the principles as outlined in SAC2018-17 and save yourselves a bother without a redeemable quality.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote: Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.
I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis.
Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
If that is the point we want to make.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
Ok, I agree. But I do not agree that there is malignant At-Large propensity. I'm sure there are only good intentions to participate and collaborate. Kind regards Alberto De: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Holly Raiche Enviado el: martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 08:26 p.m. Para: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input Thanks Carlton I really like that suggestion - it is a document only of principles, but ones that ALAC clearly supports, and that fit well into our EPDP discussions and, because of the shortness of time, we can all agree on Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 9:16 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> > wrote: The At-Large is well-advised to take SSAC publications seriously. For in regard to problem definition, analysis and recommendations to solution they are thorough, devoid of hysteria and exhibits an internal logic any sentient being can apply. A suggestion. SAC2018-17 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-17-26jun18-en.pdf> details the high-level recommendations as principles that the SSAC believes should guide ePDP deliberations. The SSAC say these recommendations are extracted from the SAC101 Advisory; in their own words, "several of the recommendations are specifically designed as inputs to the ePDP" then in construction and particularized further in SAC2018-17. I have read SAC101 publication and on balance of fact, so affirm. If you recall, this is the kind of approach some of us advised the ALAC should embrace to guide participation of At-Large representatives on the ePDP. One cannot now say that such a document - meaning an At-Large developed and ALAC-endorsed document - emerged from that lot of interventions. What I can say is the SSAC-enunciated principles look very much like those the rational mind of an At-Large participant would support. I would urge you reject this malignant At-Large propensity to re-invent the wheel. Endorse the principles as outlined in SAC2018-17 and save yourselves a bother without a redeemable quality. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. If that is the point we want to make. Marita On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week. Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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+(ALA C)
Alberto - I don’t think anyone in the email train is saying anything malignant. I think we all are well intentioned. I certainly am and I believe everyone else is as well. Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 9:33 am, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org> wrote:
Ok, I agree. But I do not agree that there is malignant At-Large propensity. I'm sure there are only good intentions to participate and collaborate. Kind regards
Alberto
De: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Holly Raiche Enviado el: martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 08:26 p.m. Para: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
Thanks Carlton
I really like that suggestion - it is a document only of principles, but ones that ALAC clearly supports, and that fit well into our EPDP discussions and, because of the shortness of time, we can all agree on
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 9:16 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The At-Large is well-advised to take SSAC publications seriously. For in regard to problem definition, analysis and recommendations to solution they are thorough, devoid of hysteria and exhibits an internal logic any sentient being can apply.
A suggestion. SAC2018-17 details the high-level recommendations as principles that the SSAC believes should guide ePDP deliberations. The SSAC say these recommendations are extracted from the SAC101 Advisory; in their own words, "several of the recommendations are specifically designed as inputs to the ePDP" then in construction and particularized further in SAC2018-17.
I have read SAC101 publication and on balance of fact, so affirm. If you recall, this is the kind of approach some of us advised the ALAC should embrace to guide participation of At-Large representatives on the ePDP. One cannot now say that such a document - meaning an At-Large developed and ALAC-endorsed document - emerged from that lot of interventions.
What I can say is the SSAC-enunciated principles look very much like those the rational mind of an At-Large participant would support. I would urge you reject this malignant At-Large propensity to re-invent the wheel. Endorse the principles as outlined in SAC2018-17 and save yourselves a bother without a redeemable quality.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote: Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.
I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis.
Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
If that is the point we want to make.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
This is Holli, me too. Regards Alberto De: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Enviado el: martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 08:59 p.m. Para: Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org> CC: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input Alberto - I don't think anyone in the email train is saying anything malignant. I think we all are well intentioned. I certainly am and I believe everyone else is as well. Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 9:33 am, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> > wrote: Ok, I agree. But I do not agree that there is malignant At-Large propensity. I'm sure there are only good intentions to participate and collaborate. Kind regards Alberto De: ALAC < <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Holly Raiche Enviado el: martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 08:26 p.m. Para: Carlton Samuels < <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> carlton.samuels@gmail.com> CC: At-Large Worldwide < <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input Thanks Carlton I really like that suggestion - it is a document only of principles, but ones that ALAC clearly supports, and that fit well into our EPDP discussions and, because of the shortness of time, we can all agree on Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 9:16 am, Carlton Samuels < <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote: The At-Large is well-advised to take SSAC publications seriously. For in regard to problem definition, analysis and recommendations to solution they are thorough, devoid of hysteria and exhibits an internal logic any sentient being can apply. A suggestion. <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-17-26jun18-en.pdf> SAC2018-17 details the high-level recommendations as principles that the SSAC believes should guide ePDP deliberations. The SSAC say these recommendations are extracted from the SAC101 Advisory; in their own words, "several of the recommendations are specifically designed as inputs to the ePDP" then in construction and particularized further in SAC2018-17. I have read SAC101 publication and on balance of fact, so affirm. If you recall, this is the kind of approach some of us advised the ALAC should embrace to guide participation of At-Large representatives on the ePDP. One cannot now say that such a document - meaning an At-Large developed and ALAC-endorsed document - emerged from that lot of interventions. What I can say is the SSAC-enunciated principles look very much like those the rational mind of an At-Large participant would support. I would urge you reject this malignant At-Large propensity to re-invent the wheel. Endorse the principles as outlined in SAC2018-17 and save yourselves a bother without a redeemable quality. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Marita Moll < <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote: Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format. I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis. Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. If that is the point we want to make. Marita On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP. So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found at <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ> https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience. I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data. I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week. Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL AC)> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL AC)> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL AC)> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
Although I was a bit taken aback by the tone in which it was delivered, I think the suggestion that we endorse the statement of principles SAC2018-17 was along the same lines as my original suggestion. I just didn't have that text. Marita On 8/28/2018 8:18 PM, Alberto Soto wrote:
This is Holli, me too.
Regards
Alberto
*De:*Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> *Enviado el:* martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 08:59 p.m. *Para:* Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org> *CC:* Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
Alberto - I don’t think anyone in the email train is saying anything malignant. I think we all are well intentioned. I certainly am and I believe everyone else is as well.
Holly
On 29 Aug 2018, at 9:33 am, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>> wrote:
Ok, I agree. But I do not agree that there is malignant At-Large propensity. I'm sure there are only good intentions to participate and collaborate.
Kind regards
Alberto
*De:*ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>*En nombre de*Holly Raiche *Enviado el:*martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 08:26 p.m. *Para:*Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> *CC:*At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> *Asunto:*Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
Thanks Carlton
I really like that suggestion - it is a document only of principles, but ones that ALAC clearly supports, and that fit well into our EPDP discussions and, because of the shortness of time, we can all agree on
Holly
On 29 Aug 2018, at 9:16 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote:
The At-Large is well-advised to take SSAC publications seriously. For in regard to problem definition, analysis and recommendations to solution they are thorough, devoid of hysteria and exhibits an internal logic any sentient being can apply.
A suggestion. SAC2018-17 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-17-26jun18-en.pdf>details the high-level recommendations as principles that the SSAC believes should guide ePDP deliberations. The SSAC say these recommendations are extracted from the SAC101 Advisory; in their own words, "/several of the recommendations are specifically designed as inputs to the ePDP/" then in construction and particularized further in SAC2018-17.
I have read SAC101 publication and on balance of fact, so affirm. If you recall, this is the kind of approach some of us advised the ALAC should embrace to guide participation of At-Large representatives on the ePDP. One cannot now say that such a document - meaning an At-Large developed and ALAC-endorsed document - emerged from that lot of interventions.
What I can say is the SSAC-enunciated principles look very much like those the rational mind of an At-Large participant would support. I would urge you reject this malignant At-Large propensity to re-invent the wheel. Endorse the principles as outlined in SAC2018-17 and save yourselves a bother without a redeemable quality.
-Carlton
============================== /Carlton A Samuels/ /Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.
I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket endorsement of everything without careful analysis.
Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
If that is the point we want to make.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found athttps://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is attached for your convenience.
I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call later in the week.
Alan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online:http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>
ALAC Working Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online:http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online:http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Carlton Samuels -
Holly Raiche -
Joanna Kulesza -
John Laprise -
Jonathan Zuck -
Marita Moll -
Seun Ojedeji