FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague
FYI. Note the specific request for advice via GAC on data protection. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@icann.org> Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague To: "soac-discussion@icann.org" <soac-discussion@icann.org> Cc: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin@markmonitor.com> Dear SO/AC Chairs, **** Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA negotiations, we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the work conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members. **** Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received from the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the complex issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations. Several meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto, including plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts on several specific issues. There is also an agreement among the negotiation teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community. **** For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the ICANN wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regis... **** Sincerely, **** Kurt Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor) **** **** **** **** **** **** ** **
Hi Carlton Privacy was one of the really hard issues that the Whois Review had to grapple with. If you look at the initial report (as opposed to the Final and Final Final reports) two privacy issues are there. The first is how to determine registrant eligibility for the privacy server. Should it be confined to individuals, or include organisations (clear candidates would be human rights groups in many countries, womens' refuges etc) Trying to define eligibility will be a challenge. The other challenge is to define who has legitimate access to the contact information held by the privacy server. 'Law enforcement agencies' was the initial thought. But in some countries, private organisations also perform law enforcement tasks under contract to the agency. They are performing legitimate law enforcement tasks but aren't themselves, agencies. Should they have access. Even more difficult are the countries where the state itself is the oppressor - and its 'law enforcement' agencies are the very reason for the need for privacy. I'm sure that is the reason the Final Final report backed away from any details on the proposal - and probably why discussion is being fostered now. I suspect there will be many varied and divergent views within ALAC - all of them legitimate. Providing input on what is a complex, vexed issue will be a challenge for GAC - and for ALAC. Holly On 08/09/2012, at 12:46 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
FYI. Note the specific request for advice via GAC on data protection. - Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@icann.org> Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague To: "soac-discussion@icann.org" <soac-discussion@icann.org> Cc: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin@markmonitor.com>
Dear SO/AC Chairs,
****
Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA negotiations, we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the work conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members.
****
Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received from the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the complex issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations. Several meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto, including plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts on several specific issues. There is also an agreement among the negotiation teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community.
****
For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the ICANN wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regis...
****
Sincerely,
****
Kurt Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)
****
****
****
****
****
****
** ** <smime.p7s>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>wrote:
Hi Carlton
Privacy was one of the really hard issues that the Whois Review had to grapple with. If you look at the initial report (as opposed to the Final and Final Final reports) two privacy issues are there. The first is how to determine registrant eligibility for the privacy server. Should it be confined to individuals, or include organisations (clear candidates would be human rights groups in many countries, womens' refuges etc) Trying to define eligibility will be a challenge. The other challenge is to define who has legitimate access to the contact information held by the privacy server. 'Law enforcement agencies' was the initial thought. But in some countries, private organisations also perform law enforcement tasks under contract to the agency. They are performing legitimate law enforcement tasks but aren't themselves, agencies. Should they have access. Even more difficult are the countries where the state itself is the oppressor - and its 'law enforcement' agencies a! re the very reason for the need for privacy.
Noting that there are two Studies currently being undertaken by experts on the Whois Proxy & Privacy Study and Whois Proxy and Privacy Relay and Reveal Study which the global community was informed would conclude in 2012 but there has been a shift in when the outcome of this Study will be delivered which is now 2013, it follows that the Policy or PDP process will no doubt have to factor the results into the mix. However, this is not to say that discussions should wait for the results of the Studies, I think some work should be done now and a good starting point could to create a temporary baseline modelled around the findings Council of European National TLD Registries.
I'm sure that is the reason the Final Final report backed away from any details on the proposal - and probably why discussion is being fostered now.
I suspect there will be many varied and divergent views within ALAC - all of them legitimate. Providing input on what is a complex, vexed issue will be a challenge for GAC - and for ALAC.
Holly
On 08/09/2012, at 12:46 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
FYI. Note the specific request for advice via GAC on data protection. - Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@icann.org> Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague To: "soac-discussion@icann.org" <soac-discussion@icann.org> Cc: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin@markmonitor.com>
Dear SO/AC Chairs,
****
Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA negotiations, we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the work conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members.
****
Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received from the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the complex issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations. Several meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto, including plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts on several specific issues. There is also an agreement among the negotiation teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community.
****
For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the ICANN wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regis...
****
Sincerely,
****
Kurt Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)
****
****
****
****
****
****
** ** <smime.p7s>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Hi Holly: Absolutely, the privacy issues you highlighted do attract spirited debate and very emotional responses. The ALAC has staked out its position and at least for the last 3 years, that position has been consistently reiterated: a recognition that in furtherance of free speech rights, some groups, especially ones that might be politically inconvenient, do indeed deserve some protection; a formal community embrace of defined privacy services and their providers; the conditions under which a privacy provider would be authorised. Best, - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>wrote:
Hi Carlton
Privacy was one of the really hard issues that the Whois Review had to grapple with. If you look at the initial report (as opposed to the Final and Final Final reports) two privacy issues are there. The first is how to determine registrant eligibility for the privacy server. Should it be confined to individuals, or include organisations (clear candidates would be human rights groups in many countries, womens' refuges etc) Trying to define eligibility will be a challenge. The other challenge is to define who has legitimate access to the contact information held by the privacy server. 'Law enforcement agencies' was the initial thought. But in some countries, private organisations also perform law enforcement tasks under contract to the agency. They are performing legitimate law enforcement tasks but aren't themselves, agencies. Should they have access. Even more difficult are the countries where the state itself is the oppressor - and its 'law enforcement' agencies are the very reason for the need for privacy.
I'm sure that is the reason the Final Final report backed away from any details on the proposal - and probably why discussion is being fostered now.
I suspect there will be many varied and divergent views within ALAC - all of them legitimate. Providing input on what is a complex, vexed issue will be a challenge for GAC - and for ALAC.
Holly
On 08/09/2012, at 12:46 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
FYI. Note the specific request for advice via GAC on data protection. - Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@icann.org> Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague To: "soac-discussion@icann.org" <soac-discussion@icann.org> Cc: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin@markmonitor.com>
Dear SO/AC Chairs,
****
Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA negotiations, we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the work conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members.
****
Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received from the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the complex issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations. Several meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto, including plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts on several specific issues. There is also an agreement among the negotiation teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community.
****
For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the ICANN wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regis...
****
Sincerely,
****
Kurt Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)
****
****
****
****
****
****
** ** <smime.p7s>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I should also add that the threats that accompany the TPP gives rise to what Holly mentions in terms of "private law enforcement" where IP mark holders by virtue of serving notice directly can have access. This is why laws need to be debated by people in Parliaments or Legislative Assemblies. What happens to "Due Process"? What constitutes a legal seizure of a Domain Name? On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi Holly: Absolutely, the privacy issues you highlighted do attract spirited debate and very emotional responses. The ALAC has staked out its position and at least for the last 3 years, that position has been consistently reiterated: a recognition that in furtherance of free speech rights, some groups, especially ones that might be politically inconvenient, do indeed deserve some protection; a formal community embrace of defined privacy services and their providers; the conditions under which a privacy provider would be authorised.
Best, - Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net
wrote:
Hi Carlton
Privacy was one of the really hard issues that the Whois Review had to grapple with. If you look at the initial report (as opposed to the Final and Final Final reports) two privacy issues are there. The first is how to determine registrant eligibility for the privacy server. Should it be confined to individuals, or include organisations (clear candidates would be human rights groups in many countries, womens' refuges etc) Trying to define eligibility will be a challenge. The other challenge is to define who has legitimate access to the contact information held by the privacy server. 'Law enforcement agencies' was the initial thought. But in some countries, private organisations also perform law enforcement tasks under contract to the agency. They are performing legitimate law enforcement tasks but aren't themselves, agencies. Should they have access. Even more difficult are the countries where the state itself is the oppressor - and its 'law enforcement' agencies are the very reason for the need for privacy.
I'm sure that is the reason the Final Final report backed away from any details on the proposal - and probably why discussion is being fostered now.
I suspect there will be many varied and divergent views within ALAC - all of them legitimate. Providing input on what is a complex, vexed issue will be a challenge for GAC - and for ALAC.
Holly
On 08/09/2012, at 12:46 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
FYI. Note the specific request for advice via GAC on data protection. - Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@icann.org> Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague To: "soac-discussion@icann.org" <soac-discussion@icann.org> Cc: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin@markmonitor.com>
Dear SO/AC Chairs,
****
Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA negotiations, we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the work conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members.
****
Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received from the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the complex issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations. Several meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto, including plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts on several specific issues. There is also an agreement among the negotiation teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community.
****
For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the ICANN wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regis...
****
Sincerely,
****
Kurt Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)
****
****
****
****
****
****
** ** <smime.p7s>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Thanks Carlton The real challenge will not be the principle: when I sat in the Whois Review team discussions, there was general acceptance of the need to protect those groups that may be at risk in certain political situations. The challenge is putting the generally agreed principle into words - how to describe human rights groups in a way that identifies those groups/individuals that will be at risk while not giving the same protection to those who would take advantage for nefarious purposes (the SSAC work showed a large number of people in malware/criminal activity using the privacy/proxy server device to hide their identity.) So it is a clear case of the devil in the detail. And the other challenge is defining who gets access to those details and in what circumstance. Again - a very vexed question. Yes, it is a real issue for ALAC - but once we get beyond principle, it will be a complex set of issues Holly On 11/09/2012, at 1:58 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Hi Holly: Absolutely, the privacy issues you highlighted do attract spirited debate and very emotional responses. The ALAC has staked out its position and at least for the last 3 years, that position has been consistently reiterated: a recognition that in furtherance of free speech rights, some groups, especially ones that might be politically inconvenient, do indeed deserve some protection; a formal community embrace of defined privacy services and their providers; the conditions under which a privacy provider would be authorised.
Best, - Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Hi Carlton
Privacy was one of the really hard issues that the Whois Review had to grapple with. If you look at the initial report (as opposed to the Final and Final Final reports) two privacy issues are there. The first is how to determine registrant eligibility for the privacy server. Should it be confined to individuals, or include organisations (clear candidates would be human rights groups in many countries, womens' refuges etc) Trying to define eligibility will be a challenge. The other challenge is to define who has legitimate access to the contact information held by the privacy server. 'Law enforcement agencies' was the initial thought. But in some countries, private organisations also perform law enforcement tasks under contract to the agency. They are performing legitimate law enforcement tasks but aren't themselves, agencies. Should they have access. Even more difficult are the countries where the state itself is the oppressor - and its 'law enforcement' agencies are the very reason for the need for privacy.
I'm sure that is the reason the Final Final report backed away from any details on the proposal - and probably why discussion is being fostered now.
I suspect there will be many varied and divergent views within ALAC - all of them legitimate. Providing input on what is a complex, vexed issue will be a challenge for GAC - and for ALAC.
Holly
On 08/09/2012, at 12:46 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
FYI. Note the specific request for advice via GAC on data protection. - Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@icann.org> Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague To: "soac-discussion@icann.org" <soac-discussion@icann.org> Cc: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin@markmonitor.com>
Dear SO/AC Chairs,
****
Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA negotiations, we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the work conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members.
****
Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received from the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the complex issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations. Several meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto, including plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts on several specific issues. There is also an agreement among the negotiation teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community.
****
For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the ICANN wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regis...
****
Sincerely,
****
Kurt Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)
****
****
****
****
****
****
** ** <smime.p7s>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (3)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Holly Raiche -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro