EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model
The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep1 8-en.pdf) about the accreditation and access model. This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game. We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council's approval of the Charter. In addition, the EDPB's July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN and the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter. Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this? Thanks, Darcy
Rafik, as Council liaison to the EPDP, what can you share about the impact the EPDP Team sees here? Darcy From: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:11 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep1 8-en.pdf) about the accreditation and access model. This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game. We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council's approval of the Charter. In addition, the EDPB's July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN and the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter. Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this? Thanks, Darcy
Darcy has asked an excellent question. As an outgoing councilor, I guess I can afford to be blunt here. What is going on? I quit the RDS PDP after two years of soul destroying work because it was blindingly clear we were going nowhere, and the Board was already working on a temp spec to override anything we were doing. IS the same thing going to happen with the EPDP? I am deeply concerned about the integrity of the multi-stakeholder process. Sorry for being direct, but time is precious. Stephanie Perrin On 2018-09-19 14:07, Darcy Southwell wrote:
Rafik, as Council liaison to the EPDP, what can you share about the impact the EPDP Team sees here?
Darcy
*From:* Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:11 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model
The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18...) about the accreditation and access model. This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game. We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council’s approval of the Charter. In addition, the EDPB’s July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN *_and_* the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter.
Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this?
Thanks,
Darcy
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Hi Darcy, while the letter was shared in the mailing list by EPDP team member this week, there was no discussion or reaction on that matter within the EPDP team. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 20 sept. 2018 à 03:07, Darcy Southwell < darcy.southwell@endurance.com> a écrit :
Rafik, as Council liaison to the EPDP, what can you share about the impact the EPDP Team sees here?
Darcy
*From:* Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:11 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model
The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18...) about the accreditation and access model. This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game. We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council’s approval of the Charter. In addition, the EDPB’s July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN *and* the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter.
Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this?
Thanks,
Darcy _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
On 20-09-18 02:01, Rafik Dammak wrote:
while the letter was shared in the mailing list by EPDP team member this week, there was no discussion or reaction on that matter within the EPDP team.
Indeed. I shared it to hear whether the group felt it had any impact on the EPDP work, and was somewhat surprised that there were no comments. Julf
Thanks Rafik. Thanks Darcy. Darcy, to respond to your request, I’m not sure that I can provide much more background on this than the letter itself, which is pretty self-explanatory. We all know the history: · GNSO Community working on various policy development efforts to address WHOIS, including protecting privacy and allowing disclosure for legitimate purposes. . · GDPR comes into effect with deadline for fines. · Certain Contracted Parties become concerned about fines and work with Staff to develop the Temp Spec. IPC and other folks who need disclosure for legitimate purposes practically beg Staff to include the details of a framework for such disclosures. · Staff produces a Temp Spec for the Board to implement which contains the requirement for disclosures but little detail. · Almost immediately, it is much more difficult to obtain needed disclosures for legitimate purposes, creating a safe haven for all sorts of Internet maladies. We understand that some do not believe in the existence of this problem, but like most real things, the existence of the problem isn’t dependent on a need for 100% of people to believe in them. · Like Contracted Parties who saw an immediate problem and went to Staff seeking a Temp Spec while GNSO Community policy work was ongoing, IPC and others are working with Staff to (hopefully) get a Temp Spec in place addressing the details for a uniform/unified disclosure process while the Community work continues. Hopefully, the EPDP produces Policy that finally, after decades of work, solves all of the above. To the extent that the policy development process is being undermined by the letter it seems to me that it has already been undermined by the request by certain Contracted Parties for the Temp Spec. That ship has sailed and, respectfully, certain of the Contracted Parties were at the helm. I know this may be unpopular email, but I think it is best not to dance around the issues or try to get cute in explaining why the letter was sent. I think as far as the EPDP is concerned, it seems like a non-issue, since as Rafik noted, the letter had no effect on the work of the EPDP. Apologies for the inevitable slowness in any future responses to this response. I am in London setting up my daughter’s flat and leaving her here for university, so I will be a bit distracted and out of the usual time zone until next week. Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:02 AM To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model Hi Darcy, while the letter was shared in the mailing list by EPDP team member this week, there was no discussion or reaction on that matter within the EPDP team. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 20 sept. 2018 à 03:07, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> a écrit : Rafik, as Council liaison to the EPDP, what can you share about the impact the EPDP Team sees here? Darcy From: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:11 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fcorrespondence%2Fbc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C71d033a9821d4ef00ef708d61e8c5549%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636729985406750073&sdata=%2F5e3XBAB9HJLerW3eImKmx9pEWnVev2CGPLuhWxWHGc%3D&reserved=0>) about the accreditation and access model. This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game. We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council’s approval of the Charter. In addition, the EDPB’s July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN and the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter. Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this? Thanks, Darcy _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C71d033a9821d4ef00ef708d61e8c5549%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636729985406760069&sdata=74pu9jvsIQj8g%2FjG8RjpGKpgRxI1O%2FAkA%2BvHjU0jieU%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Paul Your history regarding the Contracted Parties and the Temp Spec is not accurate. The Contracted Parties asked ICANN repeatedly to deal with the obvious gaps between our contracts, ICANN policies and governing law. This predates any discussions of GDPR, though it was only with the impending risks of the GDPR and the associated fines that ICANN org started taking our concerns seriously. The late, rushed, and top-down nature of the Temp Spec was unappealing to everyone, including Contracted Parties. Registrars and registries are engaged in good faith with the policy development process and want it to succeed, but if the ePDP fails then there will be no binding rules around whois / RDS etc. The ePDP is specifically designed to address an access model during a later phase. Lobbying ICANN directly as the IPC / BC has been doing in my mind undermines the work of the ePDP. I hope that we can all concentrate on successfully completing the EPDP first, rather than requesting more top-down initiatives from ICANN. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Paul McGrady <PMcGrady@winston.com> Date: Friday 21 September 2018 at 09:12 To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model Thanks Rafik. Thanks Darcy. Darcy, to respond to your request, I’m not sure that I can provide much more background on this than the letter itself, which is pretty self-explanatory. We all know the history: * GNSO Community working on various policy development efforts to address WHOIS, including protecting privacy and allowing disclosure for legitimate purposes. . * GDPR comes into effect with deadline for fines. * Certain Contracted Parties become concerned about fines and work with Staff to develop the Temp Spec. IPC and other folks who need disclosure for legitimate purposes practically beg Staff to include the details of a framework for such disclosures. * Staff produces a Temp Spec for the Board to implement which contains the requirement for disclosures but little detail. * Almost immediately, it is much more difficult to obtain needed disclosures for legitimate purposes, creating a safe haven for all sorts of Internet maladies. We understand that some do not believe in the existence of this problem, but like most real things, the existence of the problem isn’t dependent on a need for 100% of people to believe in them. * Like Contracted Parties who saw an immediate problem and went to Staff seeking a Temp Spec while GNSO Community policy work was ongoing, IPC and others are working with Staff to (hopefully) get a Temp Spec in place addressing the details for a uniform/unified disclosure process while the Community work continues. Hopefully, the EPDP produces Policy that finally, after decades of work, solves all of the above. To the extent that the policy development process is being undermined by the letter it seems to me that it has already been undermined by the request by certain Contracted Parties for the Temp Spec. That ship has sailed and, respectfully, certain of the Contracted Parties were at the helm. I know this may be unpopular email, but I think it is best not to dance around the issues or try to get cute in explaining why the letter was sent. I think as far as the EPDP is concerned, it seems like a non-issue, since as Rafik noted, the letter had no effect on the work of the EPDP. Apologies for the inevitable slowness in any future responses to this response. I am in London setting up my daughter’s flat and leaving her here for university, so I will be a bit distracted and out of the usual time zone until next week. Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:02 AM To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model Hi Darcy, while the letter was shared in the mailing list by EPDP team member this week, there was no discussion or reaction on that matter within the EPDP team. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 20 sept. 2018 à 03:07, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> a écrit : Rafik, as Council liaison to the EPDP, what can you share about the impact the EPDP Team sees here? Darcy From: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:11 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fcorrespondence%2Fbc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C71d033a9821d4ef00ef708d61e8c5549%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636729985406750073&sdata=%2F5e3XBAB9HJLerW3eImKmx9pEWnVev2CGPLuhWxWHGc%3D&reserved=0>) about the accreditation and access model. This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game. We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council’s approval of the Charter. In addition, the EDPB’s July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN and the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter. Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this? Thanks, Darcy _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C71d033a9821d4ef00ef708d61e8c5549%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636729985406760069&sdata=74pu9jvsIQj8g%2FjG8RjpGKpgRxI1O%2FAkA%2BvHjU0jieU%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Thanks Michele. While I don’t agree that I got my history incorrect, and you didn’t point out any actual historic facts which you believe are incorrect, I do understand your position. The position is as it is always been, namely, when contracted parties ask Staff for a top down solution for an urgent problem, that is OK but when non-contracted parties do it, that is undermining the policy development process. I also understand that contracted parties do not believe that our need for access now is as urgent as your need was for a GDPR compliance solution leading to the Temp Spec. But that is a matter of opinion. I don’t see how additional emails about this on the council list will prove fruitful, since this is simply a matter of each groups point of view. However, we are all in agreement that the EPP must succeed, and everyone is committed, as far as I know, to work hard towards that end. As was already mentioned, the letter apparently had no effect on the PDP working groups continued efforts. See you soon my friend! Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone On Sep 26, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: Paul Your history regarding the Contracted Parties and the Temp Spec is not accurate. The Contracted Parties asked ICANN repeatedly to deal with the obvious gaps between our contracts, ICANN policies and governing law. This predates any discussions of GDPR, though it was only with the impending risks of the GDPR and the associated fines that ICANN org started taking our concerns seriously. The late, rushed, and top-down nature of the Temp Spec was unappealing to everyone, including Contracted Parties. Registrars and registries are engaged in good faith with the policy development process and want it to succeed, but if the ePDP fails then there will be no binding rules around whois / RDS etc. The ePDP is specifically designed to address an access model during a later phase. Lobbying ICANN directly as the IPC / BC has been doing in my mind undermines the work of the ePDP. I hope that we can all concentrate on successfully completing the EPDP first, rather than requesting more top-down initiatives from ICANN. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacknight.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7C5ccd25ca245b4a2648bb08d623f2106d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636735919919878213&sdata=XU4kZMCKiGnaGB5HUIpj%2BxxxAQqjFqY4I8Yl2ziXbxQ%3D&reserved=0> http://blacknight.blog/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblacknight.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7C5ccd25ca245b4a2648bb08d623f2106d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636735919919878213&sdata=X8z7CsNZhbatZCk2zRfr1tesqu84MEEzn5i8s0FtPz0%3D&reserved=0> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmichele.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7C5ccd25ca245b4a2648bb08d623f2106d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636735919919888222&sdata=K6%2F%2Fay5WZEmS4mOSWk2a1LuFFQdESLqd1i1Os8FySJI%3D&reserved=0> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.hosting%2F&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7C5ccd25ca245b4a2648bb08d623f2106d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636735919919918243&sdata=zu0v%2B5qa%2F0e4%2BTbnye8FwzBtuB3RbVEJBRjCbxlxKhY%3D&reserved=0> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Paul McGrady <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Date: Friday 21 September 2018 at 09:12 To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model Thanks Rafik. Thanks Darcy. Darcy, to respond to your request, I’m not sure that I can provide much more background on this than the letter itself, which is pretty self-explanatory. We all know the history: * GNSO Community working on various policy development efforts to address WHOIS, including protecting privacy and allowing disclosure for legitimate purposes. . * GDPR comes into effect with deadline for fines. * Certain Contracted Parties become concerned about fines and work with Staff to develop the Temp Spec. IPC and other folks who need disclosure for legitimate purposes practically beg Staff to include the details of a framework for such disclosures. * Staff produces a Temp Spec for the Board to implement which contains the requirement for disclosures but little detail. * Almost immediately, it is much more difficult to obtain needed disclosures for legitimate purposes, creating a safe haven for all sorts of Internet maladies. We understand that some do not believe in the existence of this problem, but like most real things, the existence of the problem isn’t dependent on a need for 100% of people to believe in them. * Like Contracted Parties who saw an immediate problem and went to Staff seeking a Temp Spec while GNSO Community policy work was ongoing, IPC and others are working with Staff to (hopefully) get a Temp Spec in place addressing the details for a uniform/unified disclosure process while the Community work continues. Hopefully, the EPDP produces Policy that finally, after decades of work, solves all of the above. To the extent that the policy development process is being undermined by the letter it seems to me that it has already been undermined by the request by certain Contracted Parties for the Temp Spec. That ship has sailed and, respectfully, certain of the Contracted Parties were at the helm. I know this may be unpopular email, but I think it is best not to dance around the issues or try to get cute in explaining why the letter was sent. I think as far as the EPDP is concerned, it seems like a non-issue, since as Rafik noted, the letter had no effect on the work of the EPDP. Apologies for the inevitable slowness in any future responses to this response. I am in London setting up my daughter’s flat and leaving her here for university, so I will be a bit distracted and out of the usual time zone until next week. Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:02 AM To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model Hi Darcy, while the letter was shared in the mailing list by EPDP team member this week, there was no discussion or reaction on that matter within the EPDP team. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 20 sept. 2018 à 03:07, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> a écrit : Rafik, as Council liaison to the EPDP, what can you share about the impact the EPDP Team sees here? Darcy From: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:11 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fcorrespondence%2Fbc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7C5ccd25ca245b4a2648bb08d623f2106d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636735919919928255&sdata=ecq0ZPpuL2CA6gB4dIc%2BYMzWoGwX0%2FWW%2B%2BfK98zjf4Q%3D&reserved=0>) about the accreditation and access model. This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game. We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council’s approval of the Charter. In addition, the EDPB’s July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN and the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter. Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this? Thanks, Darcy _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7C5ccd25ca245b4a2648bb08d623f2106d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636735919919928255&sdata=J%2BhGPKwT8uLHKFBivoXIlp2%2FHvcLS8hxiUnja7SNTV0%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Em 21 de set de 2018, à(s) 05:11:000, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> escreveu:
Thanks Rafik. Thanks Darcy.
Darcy, to respond to your request, I’m not sure that I can provide much more background on this than the letter itself, which is pretty self-explanatory. We all know the history:
· GNSO Community working on various policy development efforts to address WHOIS, including protecting privacy and allowing disclosure for legitimate purposes. . · GDPR comes into effect with deadline for fines. · Certain Contracted Parties become concerned about fines and work with Staff to develop the Temp Spec. IPC and other folks who need disclosure for legitimate purposes practically beg Staff to include the details of a framework for such disclosures. · Staff produces a Temp Spec for the Board to implement which contains the requirement for disclosures but little detail. · Almost immediately, it is much more difficult to obtain needed disclosures for legitimate purposes, creating a safe haven for all sorts of Internet maladies. We understand that some do not believe in the existence of this problem, but like most real things, the existence of the problem isn’t dependent on a need for 100% of people to believe in them. · Like Contracted Parties who saw an immediate problem and went to Staff seeking a Temp Spec while GNSO Community policy work was ongoing, IPC and others are working with Staff to (hopefully) get a Temp Spec in place addressing the details for a uniform/unified disclosure process while the Community work continues. Hopefully, the EPDP produces Policy that finally, after decades of work, solves all of the above.
To the extent that the policy development process is being undermined by the letter it seems to me that it has already been undermined by the request by certain Contracted Parties for the Temp Spec. That ship has sailed and, respectfully, certain of the Contracted Parties were at the helm. I know this may be unpopular email, but I think it is best not to dance around the issues or try to get cute in explaining why the letter was sent. I think as far as the EPDP is concerned, it seems like a non-issue, since as Rafik noted, the letter had no effect on the work of the EPDP.
Paul, Besides what has already been addressed by Michele that Contracted Parties long before Temp Spec asked (publicly as public forum records show) for guidance to be provided in due time (with no particular flavor of guidance being mentioned, like policy, contract amendment, temp spec etc.), what I need to communicate is that the use of a Temp Spec for the purposes it has already been used was already seen as an overstretch of something that was created for real emergencies (like the Conficker outbreak some years ago). A 2nd Temp Spec would likely face a barrage of responses including RfRs, IRPs and arbitration requests that make any such Temp Spec moot for longer than any PDP would take to complete. That said, not doing a 2nd Temp Spec does not preclude a non-PDP solution. For instance, I still believe on a voluntary UAM developed by the larger registrars, LEAs and IP interests to have a greater chance of success than any policy effort could ever have. That model would also become a low-hanging fruit for a PDP because if there is something already in place encompassing 90% of domains, its adoption would turn out to be much easier. This is not possible at this point due to the ongoing PDP discussions on Access, which are foundational in nature; but as soon as it concludes, I strongly recommend IPC and BC to reach out to the "Big Daddies / Large Cows" of the industry to build something that makes access requests scale. The unwilling uncooperative registrars, those that are 99.9% likely to not be RrSG members, are a different beast that ICANN's hammer is not big enough to pound; you can leave them to the men and women with badges and guns... Rubens
participants (7)
-
Darcy Southwell -
Johan Helsingius -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Rafik Dammak -
Rubens Kuhl -
Stephanie Perrin