Draft ALAC Statement on Proposal for the Framework of a Possible Unified Access Model
All, At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model. Evin, can you please add this to the wiki? I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft. Best regards, Greg -- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org "The Internet is for everyone"
Dear Greg, Confirmed receipt and posted, the call for comments will be made immediately: https://community.icann.org/x/wwA5BQ. It will also be shared during the CPWG call today. Many thanks, Evin From: Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:28 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Cc: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Draft ALAC Statement on Proposal for the Framework of a Possible Unified Access Model All, At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model. Evin, can you please add this to the wiki? I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft. Best regards, Greg -- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> "The Internet is for everyone"
Good evening: Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters. Regards Christopher Wilkinson -------------------------- ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM. Comments from Christopher Wilkinson General The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR. Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in italics that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct? At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products. Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take. Third party access Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them? Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
Eligibility In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction. The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above. Bulk Access It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN. Now it has got to stop. Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted? Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so. * * * * In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the status quo ante by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR. ------------------------------ CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
+1 Excellent remarks R On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good evening: Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters. Regards Christopher Wilkinson -------------------------- ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM. Comments from Christopher Wilkinson General The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR. Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in italics that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct? At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products. Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take. Third party access Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them? Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here. From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust. Eligibility In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction. The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above. Bulk Access It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN. Now it has got to stop. Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted? Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so. * * * * In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the status quo ante by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR. ------------------------------ CW/16.09.2018 El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> escribió: All, At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model. Evin, can you please add this to the wiki? I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft. Best regards, Greg -- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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 <COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto: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
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks. Marita On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
+1 Excellent remarks R
On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
*ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
*Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
*General*
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in /italics /that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
*Third party access*
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
*Eligibility*
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
*Bulk Access*
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the /status quo ante /by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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
<COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto: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
Dear Alan, Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to review the statement accordingly. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.
Marita
On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
+1 Excellent remarks R
On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
*ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
*Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
*General*
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in *italics *that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
*Third party access*
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
*Eligibility*
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
*Bulk Access*
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the *status quo ante *by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
<COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Alan, Wrong call, I think I may have mixed up the statements: https://community.icann.org/x/CwA5BQ Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 12:47 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to review the statement accordingly.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.
Marita
On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
+1 Excellent remarks R
On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
*ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
*Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
*General*
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in *italics *that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
*Third party access*
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
*Eligibility*
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
*Bulk Access*
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the *status quo ante *by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
<COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
Seun: What should I do now? Several support my comments. None support the original text? When is the next CPWG meeting? C.
El 18 de septiembre de 2018 a las 15:38 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello Alan,
Wrong call, I think I may have mixed up the statements: https://community.icann.org/x/CwA5BQ
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 12:47 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote:
> > Dear Alan,
Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to review the statement accordingly.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net > wrote:
> > >
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.
Marita
On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > > > +1
Excellent remarks R
> > > > > On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.
Comments from Christopher Wilkinson
General
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in italics that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
Third party access
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
Eligibility
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
Bulk Access
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the status quo ante by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
> > > > > >
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org > escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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 https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> > > > > <COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf>_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
> > > >
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > > _______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto: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
Hello CW, Am sorry I caused some confusion, it's been clarified that the draft statement on this subject is currently not at it's voting stage so there will indeed be revisions and I expect that your comments will be taken into consideration. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 16:29 mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW, < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Seun: What should I do now? Several support my comments. None support the original text?
When is the next CPWG meeting?
C.
El 18 de septiembre de 2018 a las 15:38 Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello Alan,
Wrong call, I think I may have mixed up the statements: https://community.icann.org/x/CwA5BQ
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 12:47 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to review the statement accordingly.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.
Marita
On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
+1 Excellent remarks R
On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
*ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
*Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
*General*
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in *italics *that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
*Third party access*
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
*Eligibility*
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
*Bulk Access*
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the *status quo ante *by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
<COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear all, It can be of interest in our discussion about future possible TLDs All the best SeB https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d> Resolved (2018.09.16.12), ICANN's President and CEO is directed to support the development of a solution for delegation of the strings represented in the .AMAZON applications that includes sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states to support the cultural heritage of the countries in the Amazonian region.
The latest Board resolution about ,amazon is great news. Thank you for sharing Sebastian. For me it highlights a discussion that took place in May with regards to the possibility of governments and applicants sharing the benefits of a domain name. There was a small group who saw this as a possible solution for further discussion but it got side tracked by those who didn't. I had supported it from the viewpoint of a UN protocol in another area completely, but relating the concept to parties being able to negotiate how they might share the benefits that could come out of the use of a particular geographic term as a domain name. This Board decision suggests that some consideration should be given to the concept to help to resolve conflicts between governments and applicants over geographic terms. On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr
wrote:
Dear all, It can be of interest in our discussion about future possible TLDs All the best SeB
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/ resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d
Resolved (2018.09.16.12), ICANN's President and CEO is directed to support the development of a solution for delegation of the strings represented in the .AMAZON applications that includes sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states to support the cultural heritage of the countries in the Amazonian region.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Well, looks to me like it has just been punted to the CEO (or his designate) who will make a proposal to the board. I don't have a better solution to this messy situation but I sure hope we come up with some policy in the geo-names work groups which would prevent this kind of battle in the future. Marita On 9/19/2018 10:31 AM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
The latest Board resolution about ,amazon is great news. Thank you for sharing Sebastian.
For me it highlights a discussion that took place in May with regards to the possibility of governments and applicants sharing the benefits of a domain name. There was a small group who saw this as a possible solution for further discussion but it got side tracked by those who didn't. I had supported it from the viewpoint of a UN protocol in another area completely, but relating the concept to parties being able to negotiate how they might share the benefits that could come out of the use of a particular geographic term as a domain name. This Board decision suggests that some consideration should be given to the concept to help to resolve conflicts between governments and applicants over geographic terms.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann@bachollet.fr>> wrote:
Dear all, It can be of interest in our discussion about future possible TLDs All the best SeB
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d>
Resolved (2018.09.16.12), ICANN's President and CEO is directed to support the development of a solution for delegation of the strings represented in the .AMAZON applications that includes sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states to support the cultural heritage of the countries in the Amazonian region.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Hello, While this is indeed some progress am really curious to see what the details of the solution will look like, how 1 can effectively stand in 2 or more places remains a puzzle to solve. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 11:07 Sebastien Bachollet, <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:
Dear all, It can be of interest in our discussion about future possible TLDs All the best SeB
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d
Resolved (2018.09.16.12), ICANN's President and CEO is directed to support the development of a solution for delegation of the strings represented in the .AMAZON applications that includes sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states to support the cultural heritage of the countries in the Amazonian region. _______________________________________________ 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
Intriguing for sure. I'm zeroing in on the language of the resolution, specifically "*sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states*". Until someone can show and convince me that the string existed at the second level in quiet possession without damage alleged to the cultural heritage and said string as trademark is registered in said states without wreaking havoc on the cultural heritage associated, that claim was weak, at best. The kerfuffle gets real if you follow the money. The value of the string is accrued and accounted only if it is delegated. Since any solution that emerge is likely commercial, maybe this is indicating acceptance of a tithing model as per Amazon the company giving a little bit of the value of each transaction to member states as they now do with the Amazon Smile initiative; you shop and they donate to the customer's selected charitable organisation. Or, fraught as that might be, Amazon the company collects a use tax on behalf of the member states. Putting up a web page that extols the many Amazonian virtues cannot be it! Get the acceptable dollar figure in objective and work the edges. It really isn't that hard, once we remove the cloak of Potiphar's wife! -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:59 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
While this is indeed some progress am really curious to see what the details of the solution will look like, how 1 can effectively stand in 2 or more places remains a puzzle to solve.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 11:07 Sebastien Bachollet, <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:
Dear all, It can be of interest in our discussion about future possible TLDs All the best SeB
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d
Resolved (2018.09.16.12), ICANN's President and CEO is directed to support the development of a solution for delegation of the strings represented in the .AMAZON applications that includes sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states to support the cultural heritage of the countries in the Amazonian region. _______________________________________________ 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
Good evening: I shall read the details later, but for now just to say that this may be an inevitable compromise - if agreed - in the light of the mistakes in the 2012 Round, but it is not an example, precedent or a template for other situations in the future. Geographical names must be held available to be used for those geographical purposes. Regards CW
El 19 de septiembre de 2018 a las 17:57 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
Intriguing for sure. I'm zeroing in on the language of the resolution, specifically "*sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states*".
Until someone can show and convince me that the string existed at the second level in quiet possession without damage alleged to the cultural heritage and said string as trademark is registered in said states without wreaking havoc on the cultural heritage associated, that claim was weak, at best.
The kerfuffle gets real if you follow the money. The value of the string is accrued and accounted only if it is delegated.
Since any solution that emerge is likely commercial, maybe this is indicating acceptance of a tithing model as per Amazon the company giving a little bit of the value of each transaction to member states as they now do with the Amazon Smile initiative; you shop and they donate to the customer's selected charitable organisation. Or, fraught as that might be, Amazon the company collects a use tax on behalf of the member states.
Putting up a web page that extols the many Amazonian virtues cannot be it!
Get the acceptable dollar figure in objective and work the edges. It really isn't that hard, once we remove the cloak of Potiphar's wife!
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:59 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
Hello,
While this is indeed some progress am really curious to see what the details of the solution will look like, how 1 can effectively stand in 2 or more places remains a puzzle to solve.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 11:07 Sebastien Bachollet, <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:
> > >
Dear all, It can be of interest in our discussion about future possible TLDs All the best SeB
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d
Resolved (2018.09.16.12), ICANN's President and CEO is directed to support the development of a solution for delegation of the strings represented in the .AMAZON applications that includes sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states to support the cultural heritage of the countries in the Amazonian region.
_______________________________________________ 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
> >
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
My first reaction to this is similar to Maureen's, I think. WT5 should give further consideration to a "sharing" option to resolve conflicts between governments and applicants with regard to applied-for strings that have both geographic and non-geographic meanings/uses. This option could be promoted, and a pathway to using the option could be created. I think it should remain an option to be freely chosen (or not), rather than a preferred outcome. Technically, it was an option in the prior round, since any applicant could have made a deal with the relevant public authority to engage in a shared use. But, without any real precedent or publicity, it wasn't a natural choice to make. I doubt we can come up with a policy in WT5 (are there other "geo-names work groups"?) that would *prevent* this kind of battle in the future. But I question whether "prevention" should be our goal. One way to "prevent" a battle like this is to pick a winner in advance that covers an entire category of battles. Of course that requires defining a (broad or narrow) category. To some extent, the current policies do that in several defined categories. Christopher suggests the most extreme version of this: "Geographical names must be held available to be used for those geographical purposes." I assume this means that every string that has any geographic meaning (regardless of any other meanings/uses) should be reserved in perpetuity until an applicant comes along who wants to use the string for a geographical purpose. The opposite outcome has also been suggested, i.e., other than terms on one of the Applicant Guidebook lists, all other terms are free to be applied for and delegated as gTLDs for any purpose. Another option is to use one of the existing objection processes, or to create an objection process for this purpose, which would then be resolved through a dispute resolution process, But I suppose that is not "prevention." As for implementing the resolution, I expect a simpler solution, where certain second-level domains (or groups of second-level domains) would be allocated for use by the countries in the region. For instance, ar.amazon and argentina.amazon could be allocated for use by Argentina, perhaps with further terms of geographic or cultural significance to, e.g., Argentina. Conceivably, third-level domains could be available for public registration by individuals (e.g., manoff.argentina.amazon) or could be allocated by the public authority. This doesn't require any financial or commercial relationship except with regard to the costs of implementing and maintaining this by the registry. (Which raises the question of who is to be the registry in this case...). Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:53 PM mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening: I shall read the details later, but for now just to say that this may be an inevitable compromise - if agreed - in the light of the mistakes in the 2012 Round, but it is not an example, precedent or a template for other situations in the future.
Geographical names must be held available to be used for those geographical purposes.
Regards
CW
El 19 de septiembre de 2018 a las 17:57 Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
Intriguing for sure. I'm zeroing in on the language of the resolution, specifically "*sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states*".
Until someone can show and convince me that the string existed at the second level in quiet possession without damage alleged to the cultural heritage and said string as trademark is registered in said states without wreaking havoc on the cultural heritage associated, that claim was weak, at best.
The kerfuffle gets real if you follow the money. The value of the string is accrued and accounted only if it is delegated.
Since any solution that emerge is likely commercial, maybe this is indicating acceptance of a tithing model as per Amazon the company giving a little bit of the value of each transaction to member states as they now do with the Amazon Smile initiative; you shop and they donate to the customer's selected charitable organisation. Or, fraught as that might be, Amazon the company collects a use tax on behalf of the member states.
Putting up a web page that extols the many Amazonian virtues cannot be it!
Get the acceptable dollar figure in objective and work the edges. It really isn't that hard, once we remove the cloak of Potiphar's wife!
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:59 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
While this is indeed some progress am really curious to see what the details of the solution will look like, how 1 can effectively stand in 2 or more places remains a puzzle to solve.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 11:07 Sebastien Bachollet, <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:
Dear all, It can be of interest in our discussion about future possible TLDs All the best SeB
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d
Resolved (2018.09.16.12), ICANN's President and CEO is directed to support the development of a solution for delegation of the strings represented in the .AMAZON applications that includes sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states to support the cultural heritage of the countries in the Amazonian region.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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@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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org "The Internet is for everyone"
Its interesting, the idea that the At-Large's role may not be to advocate 'prevention' but, from the foregoing, 'accommodation'. I tend to agree here. The facts on the ground determine the state of play and not an emotional or nostalgic rumination. I have argued that unless someone will tell me how, in policy and absent a commercial transaction, to repatriate, say jamaica.com to the benefit of us Jamaicans, it is a fool's gold. And to hell with them suckers, even the black-green-and-gold Jamaicans, resident in Jamaica, Queens, NY! Let 'em look out for themselves. Sure, it likely that we share interests. But I don't think I need to tell you I need no persuasion to favour the interests of the folks in Kingston, Jamaica, whatever those may be. [it will come to you after awhile why I juxtaposed 'Kingston' there! :-)]. The genie is out the bottle and may not be returned. At least not if we must act on principle. I accept as fate that we all don't arrive at that damascene moment in the same moment of time. But if we can reasonably accept that the moment will come and, with it, likely conflicts, we could accept that we must have a way to moderate, even prevent, the conflict. Then maybe the idea of picking a winner in a broad category and in advance becomes the winning hand. This is something I had always hoped the At-Large constituency is best positioned to advance. Some of us - I believe I can speak for Evan and a few others - have studied the AGB and its attempt to categorize. We have always held that certain categories ought to be prioritized for delegation of a string. Some of us have long argued that it is the category of *users* that ought to be prioritized in what we defined as 'community' in the AGB. We argued contemporaneously that what emerged from the attempt to prioritize a 'community applicant' was inevitable. It was manifest that as defined and proceduralized in the AGB, we would have provided a perfect foil for that blind-man-and-the-elephant exercise. His prior knowledge and immediate perception - and the end result of his cogitation - all depended on where he first made contact with the elephant. We predicted that different panels looking at the same set of facts and coming to different conclusions was inevitable. The problem was always definitional. Defining and prioritizing deserving groups for tld access requires an affirmative action; the close definition of such groups. That is a political act. And those in ascendancy, just like in the realm of politics politics, simply cannot accept that. Here's the other thing. If you define those and accept the proposition that they must be prioritized for string delegation, you won't need rounds to achieve that outcome. It is what it is. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:39 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
My first reaction to this is similar to Maureen's, I think. WT5 should give further consideration to a "sharing" option to resolve conflicts between governments and applicants with regard to applied-for strings that have both geographic and non-geographic meanings/uses. This option could be promoted, and a pathway to using the option could be created. I think it should remain an option to be freely chosen (or not), rather than a preferred outcome. Technically, it was an option in the prior round, since any applicant could have made a deal with the relevant public authority to engage in a shared use. But, without any real precedent or publicity, it wasn't a natural choice to make.
I doubt we can come up with a policy in WT5 (are there other "geo-names work groups"?) that would *prevent* this kind of battle in the future. But I question whether "prevention" should be our goal.
One way to "prevent" a battle like this is to pick a winner in advance that covers an entire category of battles. Of course that requires defining a (broad or narrow) category. To some extent, the current policies do that in several defined categories.
Christopher suggests the most extreme version of this: "Geographical names must be held available to be used for those geographical purposes." I assume this means that every string that has any geographic meaning (regardless of any other meanings/uses) should be reserved in perpetuity until an applicant comes along who wants to use the string for a geographical purpose.
The opposite outcome has also been suggested, i.e., other than terms on one of the Applicant Guidebook lists, all other terms are free to be applied for and delegated as gTLDs for any purpose.
Another option is to use one of the existing objection processes, or to create an objection process for this purpose, which would then be resolved through a dispute resolution process, But I suppose that is not "prevention."
As for implementing the resolution, I expect a simpler solution, where certain second-level domains (or groups of second-level domains) would be allocated for use by the countries in the region. For instance, ar.amazon and argentina.amazon could be allocated for use by Argentina, perhaps with further terms of geographic or cultural significance to, e.g., Argentina. Conceivably, third-level domains could be available for public registration by individuals (e.g., manoff.argentina.amazon) or could be allocated by the public authority. This doesn't require any financial or commercial relationship except with regard to the costs of implementing and maintaining this by the registry. (Which raises the question of who is to be the registry in this case...). Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:53 PM mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening: I shall read the details later, but for now just to say that this may be an inevitable compromise - if agreed - in the light of the mistakes in the 2012 Round, but it is not an example, precedent or a template for other situations in the future.
Geographical names must be held available to be used for those geographical purposes.
Regards
CW
El 19 de septiembre de 2018 a las 17:57 Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
Intriguing for sure. I'm zeroing in on the language of the resolution, specifically "*sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states*".
Until someone can show and convince me that the string existed at the second level in quiet possession without damage alleged to the cultural heritage and said string as trademark is registered in said states without wreaking havoc on the cultural heritage associated, that claim was weak, at best.
The kerfuffle gets real if you follow the money. The value of the string is accrued and accounted only if it is delegated.
Since any solution that emerge is likely commercial, maybe this is indicating acceptance of a tithing model as per Amazon the company giving a little bit of the value of each transaction to member states as they now do with the Amazon Smile initiative; you shop and they donate to the customer's selected charitable organisation. Or, fraught as that might be, Amazon the company collects a use tax on behalf of the member states.
Putting up a web page that extols the many Amazonian virtues cannot be it!
Get the acceptable dollar figure in objective and work the edges. It really isn't that hard, once we remove the cloak of Potiphar's wife!
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:59 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
While this is indeed some progress am really curious to see what the details of the solution will look like, how 1 can effectively stand in 2 or more places remains a puzzle to solve.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 11:07 Sebastien Bachollet, <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:
Dear all, It can be of interest in our discussion about future possible TLDs All the best SeB
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d
Resolved (2018.09.16.12), ICANN's President and CEO is directed to support the development of a solution for delegation of the strings represented in the .AMAZON applications that includes sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO member states to support the cultural heritage of the countries in the Amazonian region.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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@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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
Dear all, I didn’t want to comment before I read the proposed UAM, Greg proposed statement and Christopher comments. I would like first to thank Greg for the comprehensive statement and the analysis he made. A huge work even if I find it not a statement of ALAC to advise the board or to comment on the ICANN org proposal during a public comment period, but a too long advocating text that can be useful for internal discussion. When we make such long document, there will likely be almost none to read it. I think a more focused and direct to the point statement would be much more efficient. To the content, I have to agree with Christopher remarks. I also have reservation on registry operators to be required to provide access. For the record, Verisign has only thin whois of dot com, so, registries don’t have always all collected data. And why we need to distribute the responsibility of giving access? I think Registrars only should be required to give access. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 18 sept. 2018 à 16:34, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hello CW,
Am sorry I caused some confusion, it's been clarified that the draft statement on this subject is currently not at it's voting stage so there will indeed be revisions and I expect that your comments will be taken into consideration.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 16:29 mail@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> CW, < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Seun: What should I do now? Several support my comments. None support the original text?
When is the next CPWG meeting?
C.
El 18 de septiembre de 2018 a las 15:38 Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello Alan,
Wrong call, I think I may have mixed up the statements: https://community.icann.org/x/CwA5BQ
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 12:47 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to review the statement accordingly.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.
Marita
On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
+1 Excellent remarks R
On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
*ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
*Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
*General*
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in *italics *that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
*Third party access*
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
*Eligibility*
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
*Bulk Access*
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the *status quo ante *by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
<COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>
Dear Tijani, the Statement is indeed long, that's why there should be a half page executive summary at the beginning, like there used to be in the past. This one really needs a summary. Kindest regards, Olivier On 20/09/2018 12:54, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Dear all,
I didn’t want to comment before I read the proposed UAM, Greg proposed statement and Christopher comments. I would like first to thank Greg for the comprehensive statement and the analysis he made. A huge work even if I find it not a statement of ALAC to advise the board or to comment on the ICANN org proposal during a public comment period, but a too long advocating text that can be useful for internal discussion. When we make such long document, there will likely be almost none to read it. I think a more focused and direct to the point statement would be much more efficient. To the content, I have to agree with Christopher remarks. I also have reservation on registry operators to be required to provide access. For the record, Verisign has only thin whois of dot com, so, registries don’t have always all collected data. And why we need to distribute the responsibility of giving access? I think Registrars only should be required to give access.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 18 sept. 2018 à 16:34, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> a écrit :
Hello CW,
Am sorry I caused some confusion, it's been clarified that the draft statement on this subject is currently not at it's voting stage so there will indeed be revisions and I expect that your comments will be taken into consideration.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 16:29 mail@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> CW, < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Seun: What should I do now? Several support my comments. None support the original text?
When is the next CPWG meeting?
C.
El 18 de septiembre de 2018 a las 15:38 Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> escribió:
Hello Alan,
Wrong call, I think I may have mixed up the statements: https://community.icann.org/x/CwA5BQ
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 12:47 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to review the statement accordingly.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.
Marita
On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
+1 Excellent remarks R
On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
*ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
*Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
*General*
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in *italics *that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
*Third party access*
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
*Eligibility*
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
*Bulk Access*
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the *status quo ante *by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
<COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hi Greg, I had posted my comments on your draft on the wiki back on 16 Sep. Regards, Justine ----- On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 00:10, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Tijani,
the Statement is indeed long, that's why there should be a half page executive summary at the beginning, like there used to be in the past. This one really needs a summary. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 20/09/2018 12:54, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Dear all,
I didn’t want to comment before I read the proposed UAM, Greg proposed statement and Christopher comments. I would like first to thank Greg for the comprehensive statement and the analysis he made. A huge work even if I find it not a statement of ALAC to advise the board or to comment on the ICANN org proposal during a public comment period, but a too long advocating text that can be useful for internal discussion. When we make such long document, there will likely be almost none to read it. I think a more focused and direct to the point statement would be much more efficient. To the content, I have to agree with Christopher remarks. I also have reservation on registry operators to be required to provide access. For the record, Verisign has only thin whois of dot com, so, registries don’t have always all collected data. And why we need to distribute the responsibility of giving access? I think Registrars only should be required to give access.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 18 sept. 2018 à 16:34, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hello CW,
Am sorry I caused some confusion, it's been clarified that the draft statement on this subject is currently not at it's voting stage so there will indeed be revisions and I expect that your comments will be taken into consideration.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 16:29 mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW, < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Seun: What should I do now? Several support my comments. None support the original text?
When is the next CPWG meeting?
C.
El 18 de septiembre de 2018 a las 15:38 Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello Alan,
Wrong call, I think I may have mixed up the statements: https://community.icann.org/x/CwA5BQ
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 12:47 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to review the statement accordingly.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.
Marita
On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
+1 Excellent remarks R
On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
*ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
*Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
*General*
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in *italics *that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
*Third party access*
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
*Eligibility*
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
*Bulk Access*
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the *status quo ante *by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
<COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Justine and all, I hope to work on redraft/response tomorrow. Last week was bad.... Greg On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:39 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
I had posted my comments on your draft on the wiki back on 16 Sep.
Regards,
Justine -----
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 00:10, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Tijani,
the Statement is indeed long, that's why there should be a half page executive summary at the beginning, like there used to be in the past. This one really needs a summary. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 20/09/2018 12:54, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Dear all,
I didn’t want to comment before I read the proposed UAM, Greg proposed statement and Christopher comments. I would like first to thank Greg for the comprehensive statement and the analysis he made. A huge work even if I find it not a statement of ALAC to advise the board or to comment on the ICANN org proposal during a public comment period, but a too long advocating text that can be useful for internal discussion. When we make such long document, there will likely be almost none to read it. I think a more focused and direct to the point statement would be much more efficient. To the content, I have to agree with Christopher remarks. I also have reservation on registry operators to be required to provide access. For the record, Verisign has only thin whois of dot com, so, registries don’t have always all collected data. And why we need to distribute the responsibility of giving access? I think Registrars only should be required to give access.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 18 sept. 2018 à 16:34, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hello CW,
Am sorry I caused some confusion, it's been clarified that the draft statement on this subject is currently not at it's voting stage so there will indeed be revisions and I expect that your comments will be taken into consideration.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 16:29 mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW, < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Seun: What should I do now? Several support my comments. None support the original text?
When is the next CPWG meeting?
C.
El 18 de septiembre de 2018 a las 15:38 Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello Alan,
Wrong call, I think I may have mixed up the statements: https://community.icann.org/x/CwA5BQ
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 12:47 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to review the statement accordingly.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.
Marita
On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
+1 Excellent remarks R
On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
*ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
*Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
*General*
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in *italics *that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
*Third party access*
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
*Eligibility*
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
*Bulk Access*
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the *status quo ante *by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
<COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Greg Would it be possible to have a one page executive summary of what is being proposed, so that everyone can get an overview of what the ALAC is presenting as its statement, and your full report can be attached to it? Maureen On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Justine and all,
I hope to work on redraft/response tomorrow. Last week was bad....
Greg
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:39 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
I had posted my comments on your draft on the wiki back on 16 Sep.
Regards,
Justine -----
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 00:10, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Tijani,
the Statement is indeed long, that's why there should be a half page executive summary at the beginning, like there used to be in the past. This one really needs a summary. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 20/09/2018 12:54, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Dear all,
I didn’t want to comment before I read the proposed UAM, Greg proposed statement and Christopher comments. I would like first to thank Greg for the comprehensive statement and the analysis he made. A huge work even if I find it not a statement of ALAC to advise the board or to comment on the ICANN org proposal during a public comment period, but a too long advocating text that can be useful for internal discussion. When we make such long document, there will likely be almost none to read it. I think a more focused and direct to the point statement would be much more efficient. To the content, I have to agree with Christopher remarks. I also have reservation on registry operators to be required to provide access. For the record, Verisign has only thin whois of dot com, so, registries don’t have always all collected data. And why we need to distribute the responsibility of giving access? I think Registrars only should be required to give access.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Le 18 sept. 2018 à 16:34, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hello CW,
Am sorry I caused some confusion, it's been clarified that the draft statement on this subject is currently not at it's voting stage so there will indeed be revisions and I expect that your comments will be taken into consideration.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 16:29 mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW, < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Seun: What should I do now? Several support my comments. None support the original text?
When is the next CPWG meeting?
C.
El 18 de septiembre de 2018 a las 15:38 Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello Alan,
Wrong call, I think I may have mixed up the statements: https://community.icann.org/x/CwA5BQ
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 12:47 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Considering that some are having concern about the statement and since ALAC members have voting rights to same, I will like to request that the current vote on the statement be extended or put on hold in order to review the statement accordingly.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 11:35 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am supportive as well. Thanks for you remarks.
Marita
On 9/16/2018 10:51 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
+1 Excellent remarks R
On 16.09.2018, at 22:13, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
--------------------------
*ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM.*
*Comments from Christopher Wilkinson*
*General*
The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR.
Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in *italics *that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct?
At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products.
Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take.
*Third party access*
Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them?
Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here.
From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust.
*Eligibility*
In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction.
The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above.
*Bulk Access*
It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN.
Now it has got to stop.
Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted?
Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so.
* * * *
In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the *status quo ante *by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR.
------------------------------
CW/16.09.2018
El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió:
All,
At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model.
Evin, can you please add this to the wiki?
I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft.
Best regards,
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
<COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Christopher Excellent comments. Thanks Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://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: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> Reply-To: "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Sunday 16 September 2018 at 18:14 To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Draft ALAC Statement on Proposal for the Framework of a Possible Unified Access Model Good evening: Please find below and attached a few comments on the proposed draft ALAC statement UAM and related matters. Regards Christopher Wilkinson -------------------------- ALAC Draft statement on GDPR and UAM. Comments from Christopher Wilkinson General The draft paper brings forward some interesting arguments and a useful perspective on certain aspects of ICANN's provisional UAM position. It is not clear how these aspects relate to the on-going work in the other current ICANN fora, notably the EPDR. Although this draft is rather long for the purpose that it serves, it helps to relate the eventual ALAC position to the ICANN interim proposals. Here it would be helpful for a start to show clearly that the different fonts and colours that are used carry distinct meanings. Thus, it is only the paragraphs that appear in italics that constitute the proposed ALAC statement. Correct? At several junctures in the draft, the text reads rather more like a defense of the IPR interest in WHOIS as expounded by the IPC constituency rather than a draft ALAC statement on behalf of the At Large community and Internet users, world wide. I do not share the implicit presumption that there is some sort of co-incidence between trademark rights and consumer protection. Trademark protection is primarily about maintaining prices for branded products. Insofar as the IPC wishes to make the case for an open Whois, they are of course free to do so, but I think that is not an appropriate line for ALAC to take. Third party access Specifically, the draft refers several times to access to data by third parties who would become 'accredited users'. Who are they going to be? How shall they be defined, world-wide? Who will accredit them? Thus, we have 'intellectual property lawyers' and 'accredited parties' (p.2). Later, (p.3) we have 'a finite list of types of third parties … [which] should not be exhaustive … and needs to be fairly limited'. Which are suggested to be 'just examples'. There seems to be some internal contradiction here. From a global perspective there is arguably a serious problem of definition and coherence among this terminology. Notably in the event of 'global access' (p.5); so that a Registrar in country A, would have to give access to an 'accredited' third party from country B, that the Registrar may not know and may not trust. Eligibility In an ideal world one might give credence to the ability of a multi stakeholder process to deliver criteria for eligibility. However, the fact is that the ICANN multi stakeholder community is still highly biassed towards the interests of certain countries and certain stakeholders. Most governments, world-wide, are quite unlikely to accept criteria and identified Eligible User Groups as determined by the ICANN multi stakeholder community as it is currently constituted. Particularly if the process in question is designed to minimise the information and influence of the governments concerned. Furthermore, ALAC should be careful what it asks for; I would have serious doubts as to the capacity or interest of our At Large Structures (ALS) to reliably identify such Eligible Users in all their respective countries. It would of course be out of the question for stakeholders in third countries to identify their preferred Eligible User Groups in another jurisdiction. The Framework's examples of Eligible User Groups is so broad as to amount almost to 'everyone concerned'. The effect of such a wide scope would be to dilute any possibility of effectively restricting access to personal data, and to considerably aggravate the possibility of creating any such 'finite list' of Eligible Users, as referred to above. Bulk Access It has been notorious for more than two decades that bulk access to Whois by agents and third parties has been one of the more egregious breaches of European data protection laws by ICANN. Now it has got to stop. Clearly, Whois data obtained legitimately must not be forwarded to unauthorised third parties (p.7) nor agglomerated to create a shadow Whois. However, these observations in the draft beg the question as to how much Whois data has already been accessed in bulk, agglomerated and forwarded to third parties? If so, has the data been deleted? Furthermore, the very existence of this process in ICANN is probably creating an existential incentive to get and keep as much Whois data as possible before GDPR related restrictions are finally introduced by ICANN. Registries and Registrars should be instructed to suspend all bulk access forthwith, if they have not already done so. * * * * In conclusion and in short, the combination – in this draft – of broad and vague authorisation, eligibility of third parties and bulk access, would amount to re-creating the status quo ante by any other name. Which would be interpreted elsewhere as a rejection of the requirements of GDPR. ------------------------------ CW/16.09.2018 El 12 de septiembre de 2018 a las 8:25 Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> escribió: All, At long last, I attach a draft of the ALAC Statement on ICANN's proposal for the framework of a possible Unified Access Model. Evin, can you please add this to the wiki? I look forward to comments, questions and proposed changes to this draft. Best regards, Greg -- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list 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
participants (14)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evin Erdogdu -
Greg Shatan -
Greg Shatan -
Justine Chew -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW -
Marita Moll -
Maureen Hilyard -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Sebastien Bachollet -
Seun Ojedeji -
Tijani BEN JEMAA