October 2018 - CPWG - lists.icann.org

Call for Comments: ICANN Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Unified Access Model
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 7, 2018

Nov. 7, 2018

Dear All, Please note the first draft ALAC Statement on ICANN Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Unified Access Model<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ICA…> is ready for your review. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/wwA5BQ. The At-Large website page for the Statement is here: https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/12105. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on this draft. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

2 2

Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Supplemental Initial Report - Published for Public Comment
by Justine Chew Nov. 1, 2018

Nov. 1, 2018

Dear colleagues, Another item for At-Large's policy agenda -- the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure Supplementary Report. Cheers, Justine Chew ----- ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 00:52 Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Supplemental Initial Report - Published for Public Comment To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Dear WG Members, Many of you will already be aware, but please note that the Supplemental Initial Report has been published for public comment on 30 October 2018: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-supp-i… Best, Steve *Steven Chan* Policy Director, GNSO Support *ICANN* 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…> . Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

3 2

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] EPDP: Geographic distinction
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 1, 2018

Nov. 1, 2018

At the moment we are quite divided on this issue. If you cannot be on the CPWG call in 2 1/2 hours, please comment here. We need to report back to the EPDP on Thursday. Alan At 29/10/2018 09:32 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >GDPR is applicable to residents of the EU by companies resident there >and worldwide. > >One of the issues is whether contracted parties should be allowed or >required to distinguish between those who are resident there and elsewhere. > >There is agreement that such distinction should be allowed, but EPDP >is divided on whether it should be required. The GAC/BC/IPC want to >see the distinction made, and at least one very large contracted >party does already make the distinction. Other contracted parties are >pushing back VERY strongly saying that there is virtually no way that >the can or are willing to make the distinction. > >The current (confusing) state of the working document is attached. > >Which side should ALAC come down on? > >- Restrict application to those to whom GDPR applies? >- Apply universally ignoring residence? > >As usual, quick replies requested. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >CPWG mailing list >CPWG(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > >_______________________________________________ >registration-issues-wg mailing list >registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

4 3

Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] EPDP: Geographic distinction
by Jonathan Zuck Oct. 31, 2018

Oct. 31, 2018

I'm inclined to say restricted if for no other reason than we'll eventually have a bunch of GDPRs that are slightly different. On 10/29/18, 9:36 PM, "GTLD-WG on behalf of Alan Greenberg" <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: GDPR is applicable to residents of the EU by companies resident there and worldwide. One of the issues is whether contracted parties should be allowed or required to distinguish between those who are resident there and elsewhere. There is agreement that such distinction should be allowed, but EPDP is divided on whether it should be required. The GAC/BC/IPC want to see the distinction made, and at least one very large contracted party does already make the distinction. Other contracted parties are pushing back VERY strongly saying that there is virtually no way that the can or are willing to make the distinction. The current (confusing) state of the working document is attached. Which side should ALAC come down on? - Restrict application to those to whom GDPR applies? - Apply universally ignoring residence? As usual, quick replies requested. Alan

12 20

REMINDER /Meeting Invitation: Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 90mins
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 31, 2018

Oct. 31, 2018

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number. Please remember that it is now possible to connect your audio via the AC room, without using your telephone. You need a stable internet connection. If you would like a reminder of how to connect please let staff know. Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y7gy9wo2 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/3xu8BQ AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 3535 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

3 2

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] EPDP: Geographic distinction
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 31, 2018

Oct. 31, 2018

I support applying GDPR and other legislation/regulation. We have no choice in that. At the moment because we aretime-constrained we are looking at just GDPR and I do not believe that we should go beyond that. Other leg/reg may be stricter that GDPR, or more open. We have already seen cases in the EU where ccTLDs are more open and have justified that to their privacy commissioners. We cannot presume that GDPR is the absolute baseline. The ALAC position has been to maximize access to whois for cybersecurity workers. By masking a large fraction of the information (which is exactly what applying GDPR universally does, we are decreasing significantly such access and making it much easier for malfeasants to hide. Recent studies have already demonstrated that cybersecurity efforts are being hurt by the Temp Spec. "The EU is protectively implementing her own GDPR because DNS market is huge in that part of the world..." WHOIS has nothing to do with the motivation for GDPR. Depending on your perspective, it is an unfortunate casualty of it, or a serendipitous beneficiary. Alan At 31/10/2018 05:49 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:50 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: The wider we allow redaction, the less access there is for cybersecurity and consumer protection/fraud issues. SO: Alan I want to assume you are stating the above as an effect of GDPR (and other related laws in other countries), and hopefully not as a justification to not consider applying the privacy intention of GDPR at a global level which I think is the main question Sebastian asked. The EU is protectively implementing her own GDPR because DNS market is huge in that part of the world, there are other countries that have similar rules as well(and more will emerge) but considering that the next billion internet users won't be from EU there is likelihood that the market trends will change in future hence I hope those version of GDPRs will not catch ICANN by surprise as GDPR did. In reaction to that, my hope is that the current ePDP will continue to make her recommendations as future proof as possible in the post-GDPR-like world. Regards Alan At 30/10/2018 08:07 AM, Sebastien Bachollet wrote: Hello, I have questions: If and when other GDPR like policies are developed in other part of the World do ICANN will need to enforce a policy for each Ã‚Â« regime Ã‚Â»? Or as At-Large canÃ¢€™t we ask for a protection for allall the (individual) (end) users? And if we consider GDPR as a good step to protect (individual) (end) users privacy in Europe, why not for the others? If we have to support distinction, it must be on the basis of the residence (the address in the Whois) and not the citizenship. It must be also allow and possible if one want to publish their personal data to do so. One world, one Internet, one privacy protection for all Internet individual end users ;) All the best SeB Le 30 oct. 2018 Ãƒ 07:43, Bastiaan Goslings < bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net<mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>> a ÃƒÂ©crit : Just a quick comment, also related to a comment Maureen made earlier ('with EU citizens working and living all over the world for various reasons and varying lengths of time, what is the actual definition for "resident of the EUÃ¢€ ): IÃ¢€™m not aware of the GDPR referring to either EU ÃU Ã¢€˜citizensÃ¢€™ or Ã¢€˜r Ã¢â‚¬ËœresidentsÃ¢€™. . See art 3 of the GDPR https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ which sets the territorial scope. So the GDPR is applicable to controllers and processors in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union (and regardless of whether the data subjects affected are in the Union), and to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by controllers and processors not established in the Union. (see also recitals 2 and 14 https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/ ) Anyway, looking at the example mentioned below, any citizen living in the US, not just those from the EU, 'would get the benefit of GDPR when the Controller or Processor with their data is Ã¢€œestablishedÃdÃ¢€ in the EU'. -Bastiaan On 30 Oct 2018, at 05:52, Greg Shatan <greg(a)isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote: Alan, One slight caveat: an EU Citizen living in the US would still get the benefit of GDPR when the Controller or Processor with their data is Ã¢â‚¬œestablishedÃ¢€ in the EU. But they get that benefit o only because the Controller or ProcessorÃ¢€™s covered by by GDPR. Greg On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:40 AM Greg Shatan <greg(a)isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote: I also think it should be restricted to what GDPR requires. Anything beyond that essentially puts ICANN into the business of making privacy policy without a basis in law, which is beyond the remit of the EPDP. There may be an interesting discussion to be had about whether ICANN should change WHOIS for policy reasons, but the EPDP is not the place for that conversation. Greg On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:12 PM Jonathan Zuck < JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: I'm inclined to say restricted if for no other reason than we'll eventually have a bunch of GDPRs that are slightly different. Ã¯Â»Â¿On 10/29/18, 9:36 PM, "GTLD-WG on behalf of Alan Greenberg" < gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: GDPR is applicable to residents of the EU by companies resident there and worldwide. One of the issues is whether contracted parties should be allowed or required to distinguish between those who are resident there and elsewhere. There is agreement that such distinction should be allowed, but EPDP is divided on whether it should be required. The GAC/BC/IPC want to see the distinction made, and at least one very large contracted party does already make the distinction. Other contracted parties are pushing back VERY strongly saying that there is virtually no way that the can or are willing to make the distinction. The current (confusing) state of the working document is attached. Which side should ALAC come down on? - Restrict application to those to whom GDPR applies? - Apply universally ignoring residence? As usual, quick replies requested. Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

1 0

PC Updates on Tomorrow's Call
by Jonathan Zuck Oct. 31, 2018

Oct. 31, 2018

Who is and is not able to make an update on their work on tomorrow’s call? Thanks Jonathan [mention icon]<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2018-10-31+Consolidated+Policy+…> 2018-10-31 Consolidated Policy Working Group Call<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2018-10-31+Consolidated+Policy+…> ··· 1. Policy comment updates and assigning penholder(s) - Jonathan Zuck, Alan Greenberg and All (30 minutes) Public Comment Name Public Comment Close Status Penholder(s) Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT) Final Report & Recommendations<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=96209663> [calendar icon]27 Nov 2018 DRAFTING @Holly Raiche<https://community.icann.org/display/~holly.raiche> @Jonathan Zuck<https://community.icann.org/display/~jonathan.zuck> Registration Directory Service (RDS-WHOIS2) Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Reg…> [calendar icon]05 Nov 2018 DRAFTING @Holly Raiche<https://community.icann.org/display/~holly.raiche> Draft PTI and IANA FY20 Operating Plan and Budgets<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Dra…> [calendar icon]12 Nov 2018 DRAFTING @Jean-Jacques Subrenat<https://community.icann.org/display/~jean-jacques.subrenat> @Mohamed El Bashir<https://community.icann.org/display/~mohamed.elbashir> Initial Report of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Ini…> [calendar icon]27 Nov 2018 DRAFTING TBC Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT) Final Report & Recommendations<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=96209663> [calendar icon]27 Nov 2018 DRAFTING @Holly Raiche<https://community.icann.org/display/~holly.raiche> @Jonathan Zuck<https://community.icann.org/display/~jonathan.zuck> Draft Final Report of The Second Security and Stability Advisory Committee Review (SSAC2)<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=96210748> [calendar icon]03 Dec 2018 TBC TBC [View page Icon]<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2018-10-31+Consolidated+Policy+…> View page<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2018-10-31+Consolidated+Policy+…> • [Add comment Icon]<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2018-10-31+Consolidated+Policy+…> Add comment<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2018-10-31+Consolidated+Policy+…> • [Like Icon]<https://community.icann.org/plugins/likes/like.action?contentId=96213983&sr…> Like<https://community.icann.org/plugins/likes/like.action?contentId=96213983&sr…> Manage notifications<https://community.icann.org/users/editmyemailsettings.action?src=mail&src.m…> This message was sent by Atlassian Confluence 6.10.2

3 2

EPDP: Geographic distinction
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 31, 2018

Oct. 31, 2018

GDPR is applicable to residents of the EU by companies resident there and worldwide. One of the issues is whether contracted parties should be allowed or required to distinguish between those who are resident there and elsewhere. There is agreement that such distinction should be allowed, but EPDP is divided on whether it should be required. The GAC/BC/IPC want to see the distinction made, and at least one very large contracted party does already make the distinction. Other contracted parties are pushing back VERY strongly saying that there is virtually no way that the can or are willing to make the distinction. The current (confusing) state of the working document is attached. Which side should ALAC come down on? - Restrict application to those to whom GDPR applies? - Apply universally ignoring residence? As usual, quick replies requested. Alan

8 11

Meeting Invitation: Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 90mins
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 31, 2018

Oct. 31, 2018

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y7l65hjg The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/3xu8BQ AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 3535 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 1

FW: A conceptual view of TempSpec/EPDP and the Unified Access Model
by Jonathan Zuck Oct. 31, 2018

Oct. 31, 2018

Folks, I've invited Steve to come on the call tomorrow to discuss this diagram but I wanted to circulate it beforehand. Jonathan On 10/30/18, 5:46 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: Jonathan, Could you please think about sharing this with ALAC policy folks who are working on the EPDP? Attached please find a conceptual view of EPDP and the Unified Access Model. This started with a napkin sketch while Keith Drazek and I were talking at the Barcelona airport on Friday morning, as a follow-up to the very positive CSG-CPH meeting on Wednesday. We saw the need to help the ICANN community distinguish between Published data, Disclosure under “reasonable access”, and Unified Access operated by ICANN. This diagram attempts to make those distinctions. Another purpose of the diagram is to focus the EPDP (at this stage) on collection, publication, and discretionary disclosure under (what the TempSpec calls “reasonable access”). With that focus, the EPDP can move more smoothly to an initial report on its first charter task to develop policy to replace the TempSpec. We understand that phase 2 of EPDP can address policy for the UAM, including accreditation process, verifying credentials, logging, and disclosure. But first, the community and Data Protection Authorities need to endorse the conceptual approach that a UAM operated by ICANN can position ICANN as the responsible party. That's a "gating question". --Steve DelBianco

3 2