[ALAC] EPDP Early input

[Holly Raiche]

Joanna, Marita- that’s what this list is for - listening to each other, and I”m really pleased to hear both of your voices.  The only way we can ever reach a real consensus is to speak up - and then listen respectfully - so great that both of you spoke up.

Holly
On 29 Aug 2018, at 6:03 am, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Marita. I am fully aware of that controversy hence my concern. SSAC view of adequate/tiered access might (?) be different from ours, that's the reason for my questions. Just a newcomer looking to learn ;) 
> 
> Looking forward to hearing other views,
> J.
> 
> W dniu wtorek, 28 sierpnia 2018 Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> napisał(a):
> > Hi. Yes, "adequate access" is a very blurry term. However, tiered access is one of the key topics being explored in the EPDP process -- and I guess there will be very intense discussions about what is considered "adequate" and for whom. The controversy is already in full swing.
> >
> > Marita
> >
> > On 8/28/2018 3:35 PM, Joanna Kulesza 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> 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 > napisał(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 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)
> > _______________________________________________
> 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/20180829/d1cf6adc/attachment.html>