I'm not a fan of make work. Fact: P/P policy prescription is getting on 5 years old. Fact: P/P shenanigans are with us time out of memory. It is likely that whatever emerge from the ePDP - and assuming that is GDPR-compliant - will make P/P rules moot. I very much err in favour of avoiding make work. Carlton On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, 1:28 pm Greg Shatan, <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
ICANN has responded (fairly strongly) to the NCSG letter that is the basis for Milton’s post: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-badiei-perri.... Makes for some interesting reading.
I’m not sure the suspension of the PPSAI IRT is anything to celebrate. The WG’s recommendations (which ultimately represented a broad consensus) were adopted two years ago. It’s fairly pathetic that there’s even an IRT still “deliberating” two years later. From a community perspective, there’s nothing good in a failure to implement approved policy. Maybe there’s a strong case for a short pause to see what adjustments might be needed, but shelving this for a significant period of time, when there’s all sorts of work to be done, isn’’t fair or appropriate
The need for P/P accreditation is at least as great now as before. Privacy/proxy is not dead; it may even be more alive than ever. One registrar has apparently put all of its registrants under its P/P protection. If a party seeks registrant information, they are first confronted with the P/P information. It they make a request from the P/P provider and they are successful, they are provided with ... a dataset with all of the contact information redacted due to GDPR. P/P issues tend to be more prevalent with registrars who do not participate in ICANN; an implemented policy is needed to reach them and get them to be “better actors.”
Best regards,
Greg On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 7:32 PM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Saw it before now.
Um, maybe one point of light to celebraye. The P/P IRT has sensibly stopped its deliberations until.
Carlton.
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, 11:43 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello all,
so you've seen the paper from Emily Taylor (below) reflecting on progress of the EPDP from one angle.
Here's another angle from Milton Mueller, reflecting the points of view held by the NCSG about the Unified Access Model:
https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/10/19/civil-society-groups-blast-ica...
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 20/10/2018 12:03, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
FYI - Emily Taylor is a participant in the EPDP.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Policy] Chatham House publish a comment by Emily Taylor on WHOIS and GDPR Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:08:59 +0100 From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net> <cdel@firsthand.net> Reply-To: cdel@firsthand.net To: policy@isoc-e.org <policy@isoc-e.org> <policy@isoc-e.org>
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/why-public-directory-domain-name...
-- Christian de Larrinaga
_______________________________________________ Policy mailing listPolicy@lists.isoc-e.orghttp://lists.isoc-e.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/policy
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg