[ALAC] EPDP Early input

Tue Aug 28 19:57:11 UTC 2018

Thanks Holly, My concerns in a nutshell. This document covers a lot of 
ground outside of the particular principle we are currently addressing.

Marita

On 8/28/2018 3:44 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
> My further two cents.
>
> The SSAC 101 goes into a lot of detail on how access is being blocked 
> and in what circumstance.  Some of that text some may not support.  So 
> I’d rather support the summary statement that Marita proposed - which 
> means support for the principle, but without necessarily supporting 
> all of the text.
>
> Holly
> On 29 Aug 2018, at 5:35 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann at gmail.com 
> <mailto:jkuleszaicann at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Alan, I fully see your point. As already said, if the group 
>> do decide to go for a more nuanced response, I'm happy to help with 
>> the drafting. Just to briefly respond to Marita's suggestion:  I 
>> would assume the details of any "adequate access" are bound to stir 
>> controversy. Yet if the group decide we are for full endorsement, I 
>> will halt my concerns.
>>
>> Just my two cents. Thanks!
>> J.
>>
>> W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Alan Greenberg 
>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> napisał(a):
>> > I can only give you my opinion. I cannot say whether our position 
>> is identical to that of SSAC, but I cannot see anything in that 
>> document that I do not believe is in support of our needs. I do not 
>> think that we have the bacndwidth to work from scratch at the moment, 
>> and in a timely manner. Voicing support for this report was a quick 
>> action that I believed we could take without compromising our position.
>> >
>> > I would be interested in understanding what we do not agree with 
>> and we could certainly add those caveats if there was agreement.
>> >
>> > And thank you for jumping in!  :-)
>> >
>> > Alan
>> >
>> > At 28/08/2018 05:09 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you Alan and Andrei for the updates.
>> >
>> > Please excuse my newcomer confusion - not meaning to stir the pot 
>> here - but I'm wondering how close At-Large's/ALAC's position is to 
>> that of the SSAC? Do we agree with their report 100%? My initial 
>> thinking is that representing users, we might want a somewhat more 
>> diversified approach than that offered by the SSAC, ensuring full 
>> GDPR compliance (I'm happy to elaborate if needed). Also, would it 
>> make sense to take on the positions of other communities in our 
>> statement, if only for the sake of future consensus building? As 
>> already briefly mentioned to Alan, I'm happy to help with the 
>> drafting if needed.
>> >
>> > Best to all,
>> > Joanna Kulesza
>> > --------------------------------
>> > Joanna Kulesza, PhD
>> > assistant professor of international law and Internet governance
>> > Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz
>> > Kopcinskiego Street 8/12, 90-232 Lodz, Poland
>> > publications: https://unilodz.academia.edu/JoannaKulesza/
>> > website: https://pl.linkedin.com/in/kuleszajoanna
>> >
>> > wt., 28 sie 2018 o 08:27 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 
>> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > napisaÅ‚(a): As I mentioned on 
>> the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP participant groups 
>> have been given the opportunity to provide "early input" into the EPDP.
>> > So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found 
>> at https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ.
>> > The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is 
>> attached for your convenience.
>> > I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying 
>> that we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of 
>> trying to ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have 
>> adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
>> > I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call 
>> later in the week.
>> > Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing 
>> list ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>> <mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org 
>> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: 
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) 
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180828/59624c69/attachment.html>