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

[Holly Raiche]

Alan

Finally finished my contribution.  I know it may not look terribly different, but it makes points that I want to make:
ALAC has, in my view, two concerns - not one.  Yes, trust in the security and safety of the Internet, but also privacy protections as well
we should not be defending the IP community’s - or anyone else’s access to data just because they have used it in the past.  
Even in Article 29th statement, there is mention not only of LEAs but other governmental authorities  - which would include corporate regulators and consumer protection agencies - things we approve of

I hope this isn’t too late

(remember, it was night time here, which chewed up some of the time I have to respond)

Holly

On 21 Apr 2018, at 8:32 am, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net> 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
> 
> <NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement Final.docx>
> 
> On 21 Apr 2018, at 8:20 am, Alan Greenberg <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 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
>> Accred-Model at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accred-model
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180421/e08f4a77/attachment.html>