Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March
Amy, Given the edits and details below, and the March 30 deadline for further suggestions, what is staff’s expected timing for publishing for public comment? Thanks, Darcy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:40 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that you are requested to provide any additional input you have on the latest proposed edits to the LEA Specification no later than this Friday, 30 March. The latest message to the group on this topic is attached. The following proposed edits appear to be non-controversial given all of the IRT discussions to date. If we receive no objections to these proposals, we will add these to the draft prior to publishing for public comment: (1) The addition of the following sections proposed by Sara Bockey (information required to be included in an LEA request): 2.1.9 A clear statement that the domain name or URL involved is part of an official investigation. 2.1.10 A clear statement that the Law Enforcement/Gov’t Agency [propose to change to “Law Enforcement Authority” here for consistency] has attempted to contact the relevant parties and has no other means of identifying them. 2.1.11 For High Priority requests, in addition to the requirements specified in 2.1.1-2.1.10, the Requestor must provide specific information demonstrating that the request is High Priority due to an imminent threat to life, serious bodily injury, critical infrastructure or child exploitation. We would also likely re-arrange this section slightly, to move the current section 2.1.7 (Any details otherwise required by applicable law) to the end of this section. (2) The addition of “subject to any additional requirements under applicable law or court order” in Section 4.3.1. (3) Moving section 6.3 up to the notification section as 4.3.3. The edits proposed in Section 4.2 appear to be more controversial and would be flagged during the public comment period. Likewise, the disagreement among IRT members on the time period for high-priority requests would be specifically flagged for public comment. If you would like to discuss any of these proposed edits during our call on Tuesday, please let me know. Internally, we are continuing to work on the request for additional data surrounding the fees proposal. We are also working on removing the data escrow specification from the body of the contract into a separate specification, and corresponding edits to the contract to accommodate that. I’m not sure whether the data escrow materials will be ready for next week or not. I’ll update you before we meet. If we don’t have updated escrow materials ready and you do not wish to discuss any of the LEA-related issues, we might cancel Tuesday’s call. The fees information will not be ready for next week, but we will get it to you as soon as possible. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins@icann.org www.icann.org _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Hi Darcy and all, The edits below are quick changes to the draft contract, but given that the IRT hasn’t been presented with the requested fees-related information yet and will need time to review, we’re likely looking at late April/early May at this point, between that and the remaining issues I’ll summarize below. I hear the group’s frustration on this fees issue. I’m sorry that we don’t have information for you as soon as many of you would like. This inquiry involves virtually all of our operations, because this program won’t operate in a vacuum, so this is taking some time to complete. ICANN is working on outreach to the data escrow agents as we are finalizing the data escrow specification, and may need to discuss some final issues with the IRT after talking with the agents. Finally, we are also doing a final review of the contract, to make sure there’s nothing else that we should discuss prior to opening the public comment window, particularly considering that the interim GDPR model is up now. This timeline has continued to push in recent months, but we are trying to ensure we are as thorough as possible. Thus, if there is anything else the IRT would like to discuss, please let us know—we do have time. We suggested the 30 March deadline for the issues below, as the discussions have been largely circular at this stage, but if the IRT would like to discuss further we certainly can. Would the group like to discuss the LEA specification on Tuesday, or do you think we’ve gotten as far as we can prior to opening this up for community input? Or, if there are other issues you’d like to discuss on Tuesday, please let us know. Otherwise we will cancel the call, as I don’t have updated materials for you this week. We’ll make the call by EOD tomorrow. Thanks! Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 6:47 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March Amy, Given the edits and details below, and the March 30 deadline for further suggestions, what is staff’s expected timing for publishing for public comment? Thanks, Darcy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:40 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that you are requested to provide any additional input you have on the latest proposed edits to the LEA Specification no later than this Friday, 30 March. The latest message to the group on this topic is attached. The following proposed edits appear to be non-controversial given all of the IRT discussions to date. If we receive no objections to these proposals, we will add these to the draft prior to publishing for public comment: (1) The addition of the following sections proposed by Sara Bockey (information required to be included in an LEA request): 2.1.9 A clear statement that the domain name or URL involved is part of an official investigation. 2.1.10 A clear statement that the Law Enforcement/Gov’t Agency [propose to change to “Law Enforcement Authority” here for consistency] has attempted to contact the relevant parties and has no other means of identifying them. 2.1.11 For High Priority requests, in addition to the requirements specified in 2.1.1-2.1.10, the Requestor must provide specific information demonstrating that the request is High Priority due to an imminent threat to life, serious bodily injury, critical infrastructure or child exploitation. We would also likely re-arrange this section slightly, to move the current section 2.1.7 (Any details otherwise required by applicable law) to the end of this section. (2) The addition of “subject to any additional requirements under applicable law or court order” in Section 4.3.1. (3) Moving section 6.3 up to the notification section as 4.3.3. The edits proposed in Section 4.2 appear to be more controversial and would be flagged during the public comment period. Likewise, the disagreement among IRT members on the time period for high-priority requests would be specifically flagged for public comment. If you would like to discuss any of these proposed edits during our call on Tuesday, please let me know. Internally, we are continuing to work on the request for additional data surrounding the fees proposal. We are also working on removing the data escrow specification from the body of the contract into a separate specification, and corresponding edits to the contract to accommodate that. I’m not sure whether the data escrow materials will be ready for next week or not. I’ll update you before we meet. If we don’t have updated escrow materials ready and you do not wish to discuss any of the LEA-related issues, we might cancel Tuesday’s call. The fees information will not be ready for next week, but we will get it to you as soon as possible. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Hi Amy and colleagues, I have just one comment on the suggested changes to the LEA framework: “2.1.10 A clear statement that the Law Enforcement/Gov’t Agency [propose to change to “Law Enforcement Authority” here for consistency] has attempted to contact the relevant parties and has no other means of identifying them. “ I question whether this requirement would apply to High Priority requests. Because of the emergency nature of these requests, I assume LEA could be pursuing multiple avenues simultaneously to identity / contact the relevant actors, rather than proceeding serially through them. So I’d suggest adding “Except in the case of High Priority requests,” at the beginning of 2.1.10, and striking the reference to 2.1.10 in 2.1.11. I agree with the suggested approach to present alternatives for public comment on the remaining issues in the LEA framework, as described by Amy. As to whether there is any value in additional meeting-time discussion on the LEA framework on Tuesday, I would defer to those who were on the ground in Puerto Rico, but my personal sense after monitoring that meeting remotely is that this group has taken that discussion as far as we can at this point. I’ll just also add that I share the frustration expressed by several of the registrars about the insufficiency of what the staff has brought forward so far regarding cost-recovery justifications for the proposed accreditation fees. And I certainly hope that this issue does not yet further delay getting our work product out to the community for feedback (and hopefully approval). Is it really essential to include a specific figure at this point or can that be left to further discussion/negotiation simultaneously with the public comment period? (Put another way, what public input do we realistically expect to receive from the community on the fee levels that is not already being surfaced within our group?) Finally, we have already had several weeks for “outreach to the data escrow agents .” Can staff commit to having any data escrow-related “final issues” teed up for discussion either this coming Tuesday or in any case no later than our April 10 call, so that we can move forward to getting our work product out for public comment as soon as possible after that? Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:01 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March Hi Darcy and all, The edits below are quick changes to the draft contract, but given that the IRT hasn’t been presented with the requested fees-related information yet and will need time to review, we’re likely looking at late April/early May at this point, between that and the remaining issues I’ll summarize below. I hear the group’s frustration on this fees issue. I’m sorry that we don’t have information for you as soon as many of you would like. This inquiry involves virtually all of our operations, because this program won’t operate in a vacuum, so this is taking some time to complete. ICANN is working on outreach to the data escrow agents as we are finalizing the data escrow specification, and may need to discuss some final issues with the IRT after talking with the agents. Finally, we are also doing a final review of the contract, to make sure there’s nothing else that we should discuss prior to opening the public comment window, particularly considering that the interim GDPR model is up now. This timeline has continued to push in recent months, but we are trying to ensure we are as thorough as possible. Thus, if there is anything else the IRT would like to discuss, please let us know—we do have time. We suggested the 30 March deadline for the issues below, as the discussions have been largely circular at this stage, but if the IRT would like to discuss further we certainly can. Would the group like to discuss the LEA specification on Tuesday, or do you think we’ve gotten as far as we can prior to opening this up for community input? Or, if there are other issues you’d like to discuss on Tuesday, please let us know. Otherwise we will cancel the call, as I don’t have updated materials for you this week. We’ll make the call by EOD tomorrow. Thanks! Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 6:47 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March Amy, Given the edits and details below, and the March 30 deadline for further suggestions, what is staff’s expected timing for publishing for public comment? Thanks, Darcy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:40 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that you are requested to provide any additional input you have on the latest proposed edits to the LEA Specification no later than this Friday, 30 March. The latest message to the group on this topic is attached. The following proposed edits appear to be non-controversial given all of the IRT discussions to date. If we receive no objections to these proposals, we will add these to the draft prior to publishing for public comment: (1) The addition of the following sections proposed by Sara Bockey (information required to be included in an LEA request): 2.1.9 A clear statement that the domain name or URL involved is part of an official investigation. 2.1.10 A clear statement that the Law Enforcement/Gov’t Agency [propose to change to “Law Enforcement Authority” here for consistency] has attempted to contact the relevant parties and has no other means of identifying them. 2.1.11 For High Priority requests, in addition to the requirements specified in 2.1.1-2.1.10, the Requestor must provide specific information demonstrating that the request is High Priority due to an imminent threat to life, serious bodily injury, critical infrastructure or child exploitation. We would also likely re-arrange this section slightly, to move the current section 2.1.7 (Any details otherwise required by applicable law) to the end of this section. (2) The addition of “subject to any additional requirements under applicable law or court order” in Section 4.3.1. (3) Moving section 6.3 up to the notification section as 4.3.3. The edits proposed in Section 4.2 appear to be more controversial and would be flagged during the public comment period. Likewise, the disagreement among IRT members on the time period for high-priority requests would be specifically flagged for public comment. If you would like to discuss any of these proposed edits during our call on Tuesday, please let me know. Internally, we are continuing to work on the request for additional data surrounding the fees proposal. We are also working on removing the data escrow specification from the body of the contract into a separate specification, and corresponding edits to the contract to accommodate that. I’m not sure whether the data escrow materials will be ready for next week or not. I’ll update you before we meet. If we don’t have updated escrow materials ready and you do not wish to discuss any of the LEA-related issues, we might cancel Tuesday’s call. The fees information will not be ready for next week, but we will get it to you as soon as possible. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl>
Amy A lot of us are focussed on GDPR related activities at the moment, so trying to deal with this IRT and the moving target that is GDPR is proving problematic. However I do think that people will want to weigh in on the text that has evolved. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Thursday 29 March 2018 at 15:00 To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March Hi Darcy and all, The edits below are quick changes to the draft contract, but given that the IRT hasn’t been presented with the requested fees-related information yet and will need time to review, we’re likely looking at late April/early May at this point, between that and the remaining issues I’ll summarize below. I hear the group’s frustration on this fees issue. I’m sorry that we don’t have information for you as soon as many of you would like. This inquiry involves virtually all of our operations, because this program won’t operate in a vacuum, so this is taking some time to complete. ICANN is working on outreach to the data escrow agents as we are finalizing the data escrow specification, and may need to discuss some final issues with the IRT after talking with the agents. Finally, we are also doing a final review of the contract, to make sure there’s nothing else that we should discuss prior to opening the public comment window, particularly considering that the interim GDPR model is up now. This timeline has continued to push in recent months, but we are trying to ensure we are as thorough as possible. Thus, if there is anything else the IRT would like to discuss, please let us know—we do have time. We suggested the 30 March deadline for the issues below, as the discussions have been largely circular at this stage, but if the IRT would like to discuss further we certainly can. Would the group like to discuss the LEA specification on Tuesday, or do you think we’ve gotten as far as we can prior to opening this up for community input? Or, if there are other issues you’d like to discuss on Tuesday, please let us know. Otherwise we will cancel the call, as I don’t have updated materials for you this week. We’ll make the call by EOD tomorrow. Thanks! Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 6:47 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March Amy, Given the edits and details below, and the March 30 deadline for further suggestions, what is staff’s expected timing for publishing for public comment? Thanks, Darcy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:40 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that you are requested to provide any additional input you have on the latest proposed edits to the LEA Specification no later than this Friday, 30 March. The latest message to the group on this topic is attached. The following proposed edits appear to be non-controversial given all of the IRT discussions to date. If we receive no objections to these proposals, we will add these to the draft prior to publishing for public comment: (1) The addition of the following sections proposed by Sara Bockey (information required to be included in an LEA request): 2.1.9 A clear statement that the domain name or URL involved is part of an official investigation. 2.1.10 A clear statement that the Law Enforcement/Gov’t Agency [propose to change to “Law Enforcement Authority” here for consistency] has attempted to contact the relevant parties and has no other means of identifying them. 2.1.11 For High Priority requests, in addition to the requirements specified in 2.1.1-2.1.10, the Requestor must provide specific information demonstrating that the request is High Priority due to an imminent threat to life, serious bodily injury, critical infrastructure or child exploitation. We would also likely re-arrange this section slightly, to move the current section 2.1.7 (Any details otherwise required by applicable law) to the end of this section. (2) The addition of “subject to any additional requirements under applicable law or court order” in Section 4.3.1. (3) Moving section 6.3 up to the notification section as 4.3.3. The edits proposed in Section 4.2 appear to be more controversial and would be flagged during the public comment period. Likewise, the disagreement among IRT members on the time period for high-priority requests would be specifically flagged for public comment. If you would like to discuss any of these proposed edits during our call on Tuesday, please let me know. Internally, we are continuing to work on the request for additional data surrounding the fees proposal. We are also working on removing the data escrow specification from the body of the contract into a separate specification, and corresponding edits to the contract to accommodate that. I’m not sure whether the data escrow materials will be ready for next week or not. I’ll update you before we meet. If we don’t have updated escrow materials ready and you do not wish to discuss any of the LEA-related issues, we might cancel Tuesday’s call. The fees information will not be ready for next week, but we will get it to you as soon as possible. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Agreed with Michele and I guess most EU registrars. I think the most of the EU registrars are neck deep in making sure the business stays afloat and GDPR compliant. On top of this, we need to process many data processing agreements from our vendors and clients which need to be reviewed. And I think all EU registrars can verify and acknowledge this is super time consuming and a lot things are at stake. We also enter a stage where we need to have our own data processing agreements ready to be compliant. Pimp up our security policies and privacy statements to be compliant. We all waited a long time for ICANN. But the reality is we EU ICANN registrars got 55 days left. EU ccTLD registries who were not GDPR ready are moving fast; we need to process all the legal stuff and the changes in the registry systems on the fly. Sure we can argue this is all out of scope as it is not ICANN related. But it is also not very multi-stakeholder model wise when a lot of stakeholders are forced to deal with issues to be compliant with the law and cannot spend time on this IRT. I have not participated much the last few months as I was up to my ears in solving all of the above, and I am not even close to wrapping things up, and I will not participate for the next few weeks, maybe end of June if I am lucky? We still got significant legal hurdles to solve. And I am aware that within the ICANN silo the GDPR sounds very urgent and necessary, the reality is, ICANN is way at the bottom priority wise. Sure gTLDS are essential, but it is not at the top of the list, not even close. I would ask this IRT to put pause things, till things are cooled down. Thanks, Theo Geurts On 30-3-2018 15:20, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Amy
A lot of us are focussed on GDPR related activities at the moment, so trying to deal with this IRT and the moving target that is GDPR is proving problematic.
However I do think that people will want to weigh in on the text that has evolved.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
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: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday 29 March 2018 at 15:00 *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March
Hi Darcy and all,
The edits below are quick changes to the draft contract, but given that the IRT hasn’t been presented with the requested fees-related information yet and will need time to review, we’re likely looking at late April/early May at this point, between that and the remaining issues I’ll summarize below.
I hear the group’s frustration on this fees issue. I’m sorry that we don’t have information for you as soon as many of you would like. This inquiry involves virtually all of our operations, because this program won’t operate in a vacuum, so this is taking some time to complete.
ICANN is working on outreach to the data escrow agents as we are finalizing the data escrow specification, and may need to discuss some final issues with the IRT after talking with the agents. Finally, we are also doing a final review of the contract, to make sure there’s nothing else that we should discuss prior to opening the public comment window, particularly considering that the interim GDPR model is up now.
This timeline has continued to push in recent months, but we are trying to ensure we are as thorough as possible. Thus, if there is anything else the IRT would like to discuss, please let us know—we do have time.
We suggested the 30 March deadline for the issues below, as the discussions have been largely circular at this stage, but if the IRT would like to discuss further we certainly can.
Would the group like to discuss the LEA specification on Tuesday, or do you think we’ve gotten as far as we can prior to opening this up for community input? Or, if there are other issues you’d like to discuss on Tuesday, please let us know. Otherwise we will cancel the call, as I don’t have updated materials for you this week. We’ll make the call by EOD tomorrow.
Thanks!
Amy
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Darcy Southwell *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 6:47 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March
Amy,
Given the edits and details below, and the March 30 deadline for further suggestions, what is staff’s expected timing for publishing for public comment?
Thanks,
Darcy
*From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> *Reply-To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:40 AM *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Reminder: IRT feedback requested on proposed LEA Spec edits by EOD Friday, 30 March
Dear Colleagues,
This is a reminder that you are requested to provide any additional input you have on the latest proposed edits to the LEA Specification no later than this Friday, 30 March. The latest message to the group on this topic is attached.
The following proposed edits appear to be non-controversial given all of the IRT discussions to date. If we receive no objections to these proposals, we will add these to the draft prior to publishing for public comment:
(1) The addition of the following sections proposed by Sara Bockey (information required to be included in an LEA request):
2.1.9 A clear statement that the domain name or URL involved is part of an official investigation.
2.1.10 A clear statement that the Law Enforcement/Gov’t Agency [propose to change to “Law Enforcement Authority” here for consistency] has attempted to contact the relevant parties and has no other means of identifying them.
2.1.11 For High Priority requests, in addition to the requirements specified in 2.1.1-2.1.10, the Requestor must provide specific information demonstrating that the request is High Priority due to an imminent threat to life, serious bodily injury, critical infrastructure or child exploitation.
We would also likely re-arrange this section slightly, to move the current section 2.1.7 (Any details otherwise required by applicable law) to the end of this section.
(2) The addition of “subject to any additional requirements under applicable law or court order” in Section 4.3.1.
(3) Moving section 6.3 up to the notification section as 4.3.3.
The edits proposed in Section 4.2 appear to be more controversial and would be flagged during the public comment period. Likewise, the disagreement among IRT members on the time period for high-priority requests would be specifically flagged for public comment.
If you would like to discuss any of these proposed edits during our call on Tuesday, please let me know.
Internally, we are continuing to work on the request for additional data surrounding the fees proposal. We are also working on removing the data escrow specification from the body of the contract into a separate specification, and corresponding edits to the contract to accommodate that. I’m not sure whether the data escrow materials will be ready for next week or not. I’ll update you before we meet. If we don’t have updated escrow materials ready and you do not wish to discuss any of the LEA-related issues, we might cancel Tuesday’s call.
The fees information will not be ready for next week, but we will get it to you as soon as possible.
Best,
Amy
*Amy E. Bivins*
Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
Registrar Services and Industry Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
Email: amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
participants (5)
-
Amy Bivins -
Darcy Southwell -
Metalitz, Steven -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
theo geurts