Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position. I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement. And thank you for jumping in! :-) Alan At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
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/>https://unilodz.academia.edu/JoannaKulesza/ website: <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/kuleszajoanna>https://pl.linkedin.com/in/kuleszajoanna
wt., 28 sie 2018 o 08:27 Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> napisaÅ(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>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)
Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns. Just my two cents. Thanks! J. W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> napisał(a):
I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position.
I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement.
And thank you for jumping in! :-)
Alan
At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
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...)
My further two cents. The SSAC 101 goes into a lot of detail on how access is being blocked and in what circumstance. Some of that text some may not support. So I’d rather support the summary statement that Marita proposed - which means support for the principle, but without necessarily supporting all of the text. Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 5:35 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns.
Just my two cents. Thanks! J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> napisał(a):
I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position.
I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement.
And thank you for jumping in! :-)
Alan
At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
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...) _______________________________________________ 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 Holly, My concerns in a nutshell. This document covers a lot of ground outside of the particular principle we are currently addressing. Marita On 8/28/2018 3:44 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
My further two cents.
The SSAC 101 goes into a lot of detail on how access is being blocked and in what circumstance. Some of that text some may not support. So I’d rather support the summary statement that Marita proposed - which means support for the principle, but without necessarily supporting all of the text.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 5:35 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com <mailto:jkuleszaicann@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns.
Just my two cents. Thanks! J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> napisał(a):
I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position.
I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement.
And thank you for jumping in! :-)
Alan
At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <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 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...)
Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing. Marita On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns.
Just my two cents. Thanks! J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> napisał(a):
I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position.
I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement.
And thank you for jumping in! :-)
Alan
At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <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...) <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...)
Thank you Marita. I am fully aware of that controversy hence my concern. SSAC view of adequate/tiered access might (?) be different from ours, that's the reason for my questions. Just a newcomer looking to learn ;) Looking forward to hearing other views, J. W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> napisał(a):
Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns.
Just my two cents. Thanks! J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> napisał(a):
I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position.
I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement.
And thank you for jumping in! :-)
Alan
At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Joanna, Marita- that’s what this list is for - listening to each other, and I”m really pleased to hear both of your voices. The only way we can ever reach a real consensus is to speak up - and then listen respectfully - so great that both of you spoke up. Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 6:03 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Marita. I am fully aware of that controversy hence my concern. SSAC view of adequate/tiered access might (?) be different from ours, that's the reason for my questions. Just a newcomer looking to learn ;)
Looking forward to hearing other views, J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> napisał(a):
Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns.
Just my two cents. Thanks! J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> napisał(a):
I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position.
I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement.
And thank you for jumping in! :-)
Alan
At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
As I replied to Marita, I can live with the short statement she suggested but I would also like to understand what reservations there are about the specific issues addressed in SAC101. Although there are items there that I was not previously aware of, as far as I can tell (and I may have missed something), all of their recommendations are in support of providing adequate access for security professionals. Alan At 28/08/2018 04:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Joanna, Marita- thatâs what this list is for - listening to each other, and Iâm really pleased to hear both of your voices. The only way we can ever reach a real consensus is to speak up - and then listen respectfully - so great that both of you spoke up.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 6:03 am, Joanna Kulesza <<mailto:jkuleszaicann@gmail.com>jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Marita. I am fully aware of that controversy hence my concern. SSAC view of adequate/tiered access might (?) be different from ours, that's the reason for my questions. Just a newcomer looking to learn ;)
Looking forward to hearing other views, J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Marita Moll <<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>mmoll@ca.inter.net> napisaÅ(a):
Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns.
Just my two cents. Thanks! J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> napisaÅ(a):
I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position.
I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement.
And thank you for jumping in! :-)
Alan
At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
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/>https://unilodz.academia.edu/JoannaKulesza/ website: <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/kuleszajoanna>https://pl.linkedin.com/in/kuleszajoanna
wt., 28 sie 2018 o 08:27 Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca napisaà (a): As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has justt 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 <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 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...)
In my opinion, Marita's suggestion is an affirmation of what is in the SAC101. And I agree. Regards Alberto De: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 05:43 p.m. Para: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> CC: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input As I replied to Marita, I can live with the short statement she suggested but I would also like to understand what reservations there are about the specific issues addressed in SAC101. Although there are items there that I was not previously aware of, as far as I can tell (and I may have missed something), all of their recommendations are in support of providing adequate access for security professionals. Alan At 28/08/2018 04:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: Joanna, Marita- that’s what this list is for - listening to each other, and Iâ€m really pleased to hear both of your voices. The only way we can ever reach a real consensus is to speak up - and then listen respectfully - so great that both of you spoke up. Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 6:03 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com <mailto:jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> > wrote: Thank you Marita. I am fully aware of that controversy hence my concern. SSAC view of adequate/tiered access might (?) be different from ours, that's the reason for my questions. Just a newcomer looking to learn ;) Looking forward to hearing other views, J. W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > napisaÅ‚(a):
Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns.
Just my two cents. Thanks! J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > napisał(a):
I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position.
I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement.
And thank you for jumping in! :-)
Alan
At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
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 <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > napisaÃ…‚(a): As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has justt 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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... ) _______________________________________________ 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... )
In response to Alan, for me, it's just a case of not knowing what I don't know. We are pressed for time. So we can't hold a wiki to bring everyone up to speed on all parts of the document. If we don't need to endorse the whole thing while still endorsing what we feel is essential at the moment, good middle road to take. Marita On 8/28/2018 5:18 PM, Alberto Soto wrote:
In my opinion, Marita's suggestion is an affirmation of what is in the SAC101. And I agree.
Regards
Alberto
*De:*ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *En nombre de *Alan Greenberg *Enviado el:* martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 05:43 p.m. *Para:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> *CC:* alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
As I replied to Marita, I can live with the short statement she suggested but I would also like to understand what reservations there are about the specific issues addressed in SAC101. Although there are items there that I was not previously aware of, as far as I can tell (and I may have missed something), all of their recommendations are in support of providing adequate access for security professionals.
Alan
At 28/08/2018 04:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Joanna, Marita- that’s what this list is for - listening to each other, and Iâ€m really pleased to hear both of your voices. The only way we can ever reach a real consensus is to speak up - and then listen respectfully - so great that both of you spoke up.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 6:03 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com <mailto:jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> > wrote:
Thank you Marita. I am fully aware of that controversy hence my concern. SSAC view of adequate/tiered access might (?) be different from ours, that's the reason for my questions. Just a newcomer looking to learn ;)
Looking forward to hearing other views, J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> napisaÅ‚(a): > Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing. > > Marita > > On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: > > Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns. > > Just my two cents. Thanks! > J. > > W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > napisaÅ‚(a): >> I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position. >> >> I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement. >> >> And thank you for jumping in! :-) >> >> Alan >> >> At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: >> >> 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 <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > napisaÃ…‚(a): As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has justt 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...) <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 <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...)
Sorry, I meant webinar -- not wiki -- of course. Marita On 8/28/2018 5:41 PM, Marita Moll wrote:
In response to Alan, for me, it's just a case of not knowing what I don't know. We are pressed for time. So we can't hold a wiki to bring everyone up to speed on all parts of the document. If we don't need to endorse the whole thing while still endorsing what we feel is essential at the moment, good middle road to take.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 5:18 PM, Alberto Soto wrote:
In my opinion, Marita's suggestion is an affirmation of what is in the SAC101. And I agree.
Regards
Alberto
*De:*ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *En nombre de *Alan Greenberg *Enviado el:* martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 05:43 p.m. *Para:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> *CC:* alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
As I replied to Marita, I can live with the short statement she suggested but I would also like to understand what reservations there are about the specific issues addressed in SAC101. Although there are items there that I was not previously aware of, as far as I can tell (and I may have missed something), all of their recommendations are in support of providing adequate access for security professionals.
Alan
At 28/08/2018 04:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Joanna, Marita- that’s what this list is for - listening to each other, and Iâ€m really pleased to hear both of your voices. The only way we can ever reach a real consensus is to speak up - and then listen respectfully - so great that both of you spoke up.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 6:03 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com <mailto:jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> > wrote:
Thank you Marita. I am fully aware of that controversy hence my concern. SSAC view of adequate/tiered access might (?) be different from ours, that's the reason for my questions. Just a newcomer looking to learn ;)
Looking forward to hearing other views, J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> napisaÅ‚(a): > Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing. > > Marita > > On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: > > Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns. > > Just my two cents. Thanks! > J. > > W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > napisaÅ‚(a): >> I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position. >> >> I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement. >> >> And thank you for jumping in! :-) >> >> Alan >> >> At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: >> >> 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 <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > napisaÃ…‚(a): As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has justt 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...) <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 <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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Perhaps you can identify the parts you don't understand, or understand the impact. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On August 28, 2018 5:41:32 PM EDT, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
In response to Alan, for me, it's just a case of not knowing what I don't know. We are pressed for time. So we can't hold a wiki to bring everyone up to speed on all parts of the document. If we don't need to endorse the whole thing while still endorsing what we feel is essential
at the moment, good middle road to take.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 5:18 PM, Alberto Soto wrote:
In my opinion, Marita's suggestion is an affirmation of what is in
the
SAC101. And I agree.
Regards
Alberto
*De:*ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *En nombre de *Alan Greenberg *Enviado el:* martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 05:43 p.m. *Para:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> *CC:* alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
As I replied to Marita, I can live with the short statement she suggested but I would also like to understand what reservations there
are about the specific issues addressed in SAC101. Although there are
items there that I was not previously aware of, as far as I can tell (and I may have missed something), all of their recommendations are in support of providing adequate access for security professionals.
Alan
At 28/08/2018 04:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Joanna, Marita- that’s what this list is for - listening to each other, and Iâ€m really pleased to hear both of your voices. The only way we can ever reach a real consensus is to speak up - and then listen respectfully - so great that both of you spoke up.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 6:03 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com <mailto:jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> > wrote:
Thank you Marita. I am fully aware of that controversy hence my concern. SSAC view of adequate/tiered access might (?) be different from ours, that's the reason for my questions. Just a newcomer looking to learn ;)
Looking forward to hearing other views, J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> napisaÅ‚(a): > Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing. > > Marita > > On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: > > Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns. > > Just my two cents. Thanks! > J. > > W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > napisaÅ‚(a): >> I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position. >> >> I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement. >> >> And thank you for jumping in! :-) >> >> Alan >> >> At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: >> >> 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 <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > napisaÃ…‚(a): As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has justt 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...)
<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
<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...)
I'll add that there is a CPWG meeting tomorrow that would afford a possibility to talk specifics. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On August 28, 2018 6:03:06 PM EDT, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Perhaps you can identify the parts you don't understand, or understand the impact.
Alan
-- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On August 28, 2018 5:41:32 PM EDT, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
In response to Alan, for me, it's just a case of not knowing what I don't know. We are pressed for time. So we can't hold a wiki to bring everyone up to speed on all parts of the document. If we don't need to
endorse the whole thing while still endorsing what we feel is essential
at the moment, good middle road to take.
Marita
On 8/28/2018 5:18 PM, Alberto Soto wrote:
In my opinion, Marita's suggestion is an affirmation of what is in
the
SAC101. And I agree.
Regards
Alberto
*De:*ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *En nombre de *Alan
Greenberg *Enviado el:* martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 05:43 p.m. *Para:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> *CC:* alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
As I replied to Marita, I can live with the short statement she suggested but I would also like to understand what reservations there
are about the specific issues addressed in SAC101. Although there are
items there that I was not previously aware of, as far as I can tell
(and I may have missed something), all of their recommendations are in support of providing adequate access for security professionals.
Alan
At 28/08/2018 04:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Joanna, Marita- that’s what this list is for - listening to each other, and Iâ€m really pleased to hear both of your voices. The only way we can ever reach a real consensus is to speak up - and then listen respectfully - so great that both of you spoke up.
Holly On 29 Aug 2018, at 6:03 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com <mailto:jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> > wrote:
Thank you Marita. I am fully aware of that controversy hence my concern. SSAC view of adequate/tiered access might (?) be different from ours, that's the reason for my questions. Just a newcomer looking to learn ;)
Looking forward to hearing other views, J.
W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> napisał(a): > Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing. > > Marita > > On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: > > Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion: I would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I will halt my concerns. > > Just my two cents. Thanks! > J. > > W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
napisał(a): >> I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that document that I do not believe is in
support
of our needs. I do not think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick action that I believed we could take without compromising our position. >> >> I would be interested in understanding what we do not
agree
with and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement. >> >> And thank you for jumping in! :-) >> >> Alan >> >> At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: >> >> 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 <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
napisaÃ…‚(a): As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has justt 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...)
<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
<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 (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Holly Raiche -
Joanna Kulesza -
Marita Moll