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

Sat Apr 21 01:24:45 UTC 2018

The deadline set was Friday, 20 April 2018 at 4PM UTC.

At 20/04/2018 08:22 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>And, I would add, let everyone have a final chance to view the statements.
>
>And I’m not sure why it is too late - Evin said the deadline was the 20th
>
>Holly
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>>From: Holly Raiche 
>><<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>h.raiche at internode.on.net>
>>Subject: Re: [Accred-Model] Comment - Alan Greenberg
>>Date: 21 April 2018 9:52:53 am AEST
>>To: Alan Greenberg 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>
>>Please see what I have just done
>>
>>On 21 Apr 2018, at 9:50 am, Alan Greenberg 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>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 Jonathanâ€™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 Jonathanâ€™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: 
>>>><<mailto:ED1DF51241BD3343915D6F3ABE3B1724 at CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>ED1DF51241BD3343915D6F3ABE3B1724 at CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180420/157cdd7d/attachment.html>