[ALAC] ALAC Response to Accreditation Model - due date 20 April

Tue Apr 17 07:48:26 UTC 2018

Dear Holly, Alan and All,

I have created a workspace for the Data Protection/Privacy Issues Update: Soliciting Community Input on Article 29 Guidance<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=84215655>.

Holly, I have assigned you as penholder, but please let me know if that was not your intention.

Thank you,
Evin

From: ALAC <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM
To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>, ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ALAC] ALAC Response to Accreditation Model - due date 20 April

Holly I have been travelling and am ties up in meetings all day (Brussels time), but I hope to add some comments later tonight.

I caution care in interpreting the Article 29 letter. Despite some valid concerns, it shows an astounding lack of knowledge of the Internet and ICANN's mission. As a prime example is their advice to just focus on our own business and not that of others such as law enforcement or those combatting cyber issues. Our mission is to protect the DNS and that includes making it reliable and safe. But we do not have the ability to do that ourselves and thus must provide the tools for others to do that. If we fail, we are NOT carrying out our mission.

This will get more interesting in coming weeks.

Alan

At 16/04/2018 07:58 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:

Folks

We are fast running out of time to develop any kind of response to the accreditation model, even though the deadline for a response has been extended to this Friday. And in the interim, ICANN has received advice from Article 29 on the Interim model. (Article 29 is an advisory Group made up of a data protection authority from each EU member state).  Their letter to ICANN, and Marby?s response, are on the home page of ICANN - and for those interested in the issue, I highly recommend reading both.  Clearly, the implications of the Article 29 letter are that the Interim Model that we did comment on still raises concerns with them.  Those concerns fall under the headings:

  *   Breadth of purpose - saying the proposed purposes are too widely drawn
  *   the link of purpose to processing - again, because the Whois data has been used does not qualify it as a purpose
  *   publication of the data must be linked to the original (and narrowly defined) purpose
  *   any access should be limited - not blanket access
  *   discussion about the length of retention of data
  *   discussion about the transfer of data
  *   Accreditation (particularly important in this context) - should only be for legitimate purpose, limited to the original purpose, not blanket access, and under limited conditions

Below, I have copied in an email from Scott Hollenbeck, a long standing member of ICANN and one of those involved in the development of the RDAP (access protocol that would allow gated access to registration data) - simply because he has been involved in this issue for a long time and shows he has already worked on a technical solution to this issue - how access to data could work under GDPR.

I will try to attend as much as possible of the capacity building webinar on this issue, but have been scheduled to attend an all-day course in the Sydney CBD so may have to miss some of the discussion.  I imagine Tom will be very up to date on these issues, but I would like to have been attending the whole of the webinar myself

In any case, if at all possible, we should be saying something.  Quite apart from the original contribution from the IPC/BC model, the NCSG and Registrars have also made comments (largely challenging the IPC/BC model). I hope we are the one constituency that doesn?t make comments - although I realise that agreement on what to say will be difficult at the best of times.

And if it isn?t too late - maybe put this issue on the ALAC policy page - and with it, links to the Article 29 letter, Marby?s response, the registrars? response and the NCSG response (and any others I have missed - I have copies if that helps)

Holly

Hi all.

After reading the Article 29 WP letter to ICANN
( awbs://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-
11apr18-en.pdf), I started envisioning what process and system could
achieve GDPR compliance. What I came to is a token-based system, which
would work like this:
- Every request is analyzed by a human at an "RDS Clearinghouse". Each
request can be for a single data element (like "owner of domain X") or to
multiple data elements (like "domains owned by the same owner of domain
X"), but requests for multiple data elements are only foreseen to be
processed by contracted parties with "Search WHOIS" contract requirements.
- Clearinghouse issues a token with query parameters, data elements
authorized for response, identity of authorized party, reason for
authorization, validity (probably in the order of days), also informing
which endpoint to go to.
- Authorized party uses that token to access that endpoint, managed by the
party with most data about that element (usually a registrar).

Note that is not a replacement for credentialing; credentials would still
be necessary to get tokens. This is also orthogonal to discussions like
which use cases are legitimate or not, GDPR-compliant or not etc.; it's
just a more granular approach to authorization that looks more inline with
privacy-oriented guidelines including but not limited to GDPR.

Rubens, at a high level you just described how OpenID and OAuth work, except for the "Every request is analyzed by a human" part.

Scott,

I believe you are right, although most OAuth models I saw were not that granular to the point of saying "example.TLD, owner, e-mail address, valid until April 20 2018". That's not an OAuth limitation though, just common usage, and it probably could be made to work like this.
And some level of asynchronous communications could even make way for a quick look human analysis.

Rubens

I have this very model, with human involvement, up and running right now as part of the gTLD RDAP Pilot. All of the attributes you mentioned can be encoded as OAuth claims. The model is described in an Internet-Draft that I first wrote in 2015. Just search for ?draft Hollenbeck RDAP OpenID? using your favorite search engine.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
         1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:E+eV2ZOSHNubNtVECuy/VM/L0xhmfXbZcuSQZbzTXSXqae7LUG8EA97rPf+2WwLbTntAgo7cpRKp5nw8d8T6ebvY8Vy/iFaEy7AJW3LXmiMa8o52Hh4X6vuxt8b9Dc+H
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:
         mbIfSQV0+eZC39ENiUAspKdQkF0+JSTZwhHzgGzIJcnMTMtI1YFjxfAYUWl5x8Xsb0hCkvQc7VzC4AbTCpUbUGRQU6RcE5UUx1wEGk3WXKVvz27yXSf3osNfP8UwExDIUIL1xB46d04FaxAvbFZx3V7Y2ZVoGnlOF9jsJrXvgUSoJT4DsABV8smZdk4vNHRjunBYHmX/Uyc08KK5W5zM0fDRY7NEhuy8gp+3GzVz4A/5TqlICRbEqPiDy4iZWnOAaPiE4ELCAfZPmhMusibjqJno9CcaR04f9ovSYOL+LGRVBVtQ1M9b/SxTHtnAjl+ENjnGKfOC/j1+ryUspB55Z6d0P1zabIZYAwo87l1z4xMWzu3tmPExSwczo7sS129laKLyfrpQKQl6gt36u0ia78/RPd+UH+swgobcmXrp+pNPCIV60r6mKu9CLHxwfljZtI62wcXHykdzvBpIoyKjBQ==

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac[atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_alac&d=DwMB-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=_bN8XKJLBC8X_nYOjkUxrMzkmbPqCNOLkvIZDZOLJWE&s=V_YCu9VC56jtSLNjRAtfzrGiV7CjVULwlo-gI6eR3-c&e=>

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org[atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.atlarge.icann.org_&d=DwMB-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=_bN8XKJLBC8X_nYOjkUxrMzkmbPqCNOLkvIZDZOLJWE&s=J0d0XXcQxr9jHXFNvuKHlC7EK2s4jEC0xdSbklTFaM4&e=>
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_atlarge_At-2DLarge-2BAdvisory-2BCommittee-2B-28ALAC&d=DwMB-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=_bN8XKJLBC8X_nYOjkUxrMzkmbPqCNOLkvIZDZOLJWE&s=472esNZRSqFxnsUv-8GY87eHbULqFvRTrnhyrbhVIlI&e=> )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180417/ad3903e8/attachment.html>