[ALAC] [Accred-Model] Comment - Alan Greenberg

[Alan Greenberg]

Holly, I don't set the deadlines. Regarding 
Jonathan's posted comment on the Article 29 
letter, we can tell them to withdraw it if there is a consensus to do so.

Regarding my comment, I said there was no 
agreement in the ALAC and posted it on my own 
behalf. I have since been told it was submitted 
to late and will not be considered for this pass.

The NCSG statement does not talk about the model 
as such but the basis for its existence. It 
ignores the phrase "or ny a third party" in 
Article 6, section 1e of the Regulations which 
allow the needs of a third party to be 
considered, and it PRESUMES that the privacy 
needs with out-weigh the needs for access to 
provide for the safety and security of the 
Internet. That is a presumption that I do not 
agree with. The NCSG strongly objects to a model 
originating in the BC/IPC. I on the other hand 
welcome ANYONE working on such a model and 
specifically would welcome it being transferred 
to the community as a whole if there were any interest.

Alan


At 20/04/2018 06:32 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:

>Alan
>
>I see a lot wrong with it - and I see a lot that 
>I disagree with in Jonathan’s first draft.  I 
>have been tied up teaching, but finally have a 
>bit of time to put my thoughts down - and I 
>decidedly do NOT think the IPC/BC is a great 
>model.  For a very different view, read the NCSG 
>response- attached.  So PLEASE - give people at 
>least a bit more time to look at what Jonathan’s response - and mine.
>
>Holly
>
>
>On 21 Apr 2018, at 8:20 am, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>>This comment has been circulated within the 
>>ALAC and At-Large, but there has not been 
>>sufficient time to decide to what extent if it 
>>fully accepted. As such, it is being submitted 
>>here purely on my personal behalf.
>>
>>===============
>>
>>There has been significant community comment 
>>that this proposal was originally (and to some 
>>extent still is) a creature of the BC.
>>
>>I APPLAUD that the BC/IPC have taken the 
>>initiative to do this! I and many of us have 
>>been saying for several months (certainly 
>>starting before the Abu Dhabi meeting) that the 
>>accreditation model is an absolute key to moving forward.
>>
>>The BC/IPC have done something and put it down on paper. Bravo!
>>
>>I think this model is a great start.
>>
>>I see problems with it, but we need to start 
>>the discussion somewhere. What do I see as problematic?
>>    * I think the provision to give access to 
>> "All users", while it would be nice for me 
>> personally, is more than a bit loose. We are 
>> going to need something MUCH stronger to grant 
>> access over and above the other accredited channels.
>>    * A single tier is not sufficient. There 
>> should be more granularity based on the uses. 
>> Perhaps we could start with this single and 
>> improve later, but my preference would be to 
>> use the use-cases we have already built to 
>> provide more than one few tier (ie more than 
>> just a) thin WHOIS, or b) ALL of the data.)
>>    * I look forward to the work that the 
>> document says the SSAC is doing regarding credentialization.
>>    * I STRONGLY support the 
>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84213851/APWG-GDPR-Accreditationplancomments-5April2018-0001.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1524004586000&api=v2>comments 
>> from the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG). 
>> These comments make the model more effective 
>> and implementable. The only one I find 
>> possible questionable related to funding the 
>> accreditation process. Although I would prefer 
>> that it is an integral part of the DNS and 
>> WHOIS (and thus funded by ICANN through its 
>> normal sources), I would not want to see 
>> implementation delayed over this issue.
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accred-Model mailing list
>><mailto:Accred-Model at icann.org>Accred-Model at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accred-model
>
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
>1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:PKJyDSpsleGA7L6y7RiwBWziWgjRyLKmjJE77denCviuJRonQvhayYu4Jsewrfvt4fIHBqSNNWOBEgH6tcsIpx/yB9IZo4nij6rTRL0swEKjjZoAA+vJDEXnuDHQVhGx
>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:
> 
>t7CF4QknGdnCrBtkrn++DCPtIcMwWyxRraaDjbfhq11S3RQdLImsQGC2GtWCSFDrPmNQZou5n5JOlIuZQTOUBeQ6sQP2XaMw7THt/ZDwIDenl+SOx7PZdl8RT4FTdnfTp/o4mTusjq+jfUg8j0l7XQ8HEt8bxT5NHcOqaTSTYFtk/vpY7ogBepV2zUJGrYg40WdJ0o25loPiwyTUj8HJYbr2Fe+CKcEgU+hnYA8On9dj3/MLRrpl2k68WmjhHUAAbq7D+I0Zd3qoD7VB+giyXyNE7P9Pbc8O9hhUzK5L7ztLe5U+grXCSXN8QwH8x0SK7zdFFWywE/MuzgZaGBNAXe2gFr/MWGrv8LmqxMBBFuJzm0dOX+uV77Xdy2Hd9atmu+cU98j8e/5nhFGPnSPEGXWnQK8s2eN7feivbEPsxoZl2a1LBTOAfi0iFxUxh5s5H/THLm7kN3GI29E6blMhZA==
>Content-Type: 
>application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>         name="NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement Final.docx"
>Content-Description: NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement
>  Final.docx
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>         filename="NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC 
> Purpose Statement Final.docx";
>         size=36187; creation-date="Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:33:49 GMT";
>         modification-date="Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:33:49 GMT"
>Content-ID: <ED1DF51241BD3343915D6F3ABE3B1724 at CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180420/0cf5b306/attachment.html>