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

Alberto Soto asoto at ibero-americano.org
Sun Apr 22 13:52:50 UTC 2018


Dear, I did not read Jonathan's comments. The issue of law enforcement
agencies: if there is an order from a judge, there is no one who can oppose
in any way the delivery of the information requested.

Therefore, if there is information considered private, only with an order
from a judge can it be delivered.

Maybe in our rules, in that kind of information, I should say that it will
only be delivered through a court order.

Kind regards

 

Alberto

 

De: ALAC <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Holly Raiche
Enviado el: domingo, 22 de abril de 2018 08:42 a.m.
Para: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>
CC: ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Asunto: Re: [ALAC] [Accred-Model] Comment - Alan Greenberg

 

Thanks Tijani

 

Jonathan’s comments are actually on the ALAC policy page.  And after a
careful reading, I can agree with most of what Jonathan said.  My one
concern - and I told him this - is that the whole process MUST start with
the purpose question - NOT what the data has been used for in the past.  In
most privacy regimes, there are exceptions for law enforcement agencies -
which can be more broadly drawn, so we can push for a more safe and secure
Internet - but on the foundation of the data protection regime.  In the end,
I think that is where everyone will have to get to.  It will just take time.

 

Thank you for your kind thoughts - and for putting me on the capacity
building list and for the webinar list.  I really found the last one -
indeed all the ones I have listened to -  very helpful

 

Holly

On 22 Apr 2018, at 6:04 pm, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn
<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn> > wrote:





Good morning Holly,

 

I was looking for the link to see what Jonathan wrote. I wanted to support
your position since it’s exactly mine. But I wanted to see Jonathan’ comment
to better understand the discussion.

 

As for the capacity building WG, I will ask staff to be sure you are
subscribed.

The Capacity Building Working Group link is
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Capacity+Building+Worki
ng+Group

In the bottom of the page, you find a table with both 2017 and 2018 program
(you can switch from one to the other by clicking on the right space).

I also attach the 2018 program for your convenience.

Have a nice evening

<2018_Topics_Proposed_Selected.xlsx>

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone: +216 98 330 114

            +216 52 385 114

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

 

 

Le 20 avr. 2018 à 23:32, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net
<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net> > a écrit :

 

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
<mailto: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)
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84213851/APWG-GDPR-Accredi
tationplancomments-5April2018-0001.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1524004586
000&api=v2> . 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. 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180422/7fb009c2/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list