[ALAC] EPDP Early input

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Tue Aug 28 21:43:06 UTC 2018


Sorry, I meant webinar -- not wiki -- of course.

Marita


On 8/28/2018 5:41 PM, Marita Moll wrote:
>
> In response to Alan, for me, it's just a case of not knowing what I 
> don't know. We are pressed for time. So we can't hold a wiki to bring 
> everyone up to speed on all parts of the document. If we don't need to 
> endorse the whole thing while still endorsing what we feel is 
> essential at the moment, good middle road to take.
>
> Marita
>
>
> On 8/28/2018 5:18 PM, Alberto Soto wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion, Marita's suggestion is an affirmation of what is in 
>> the SAC101. And I agree.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Alberto
>>
>> *De:*ALAC <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> *En nombre de *Alan 
>> Greenberg
>> *Enviado el:* martes, 28 de agosto de 2018 05:43 p.m.
>> *Para:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>; Joanna Kulesza 
>> <jkuleszaicann at gmail.com>
>> *CC:* alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> *Asunto:* Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input
>>
>> As I replied to Marita, I can live with the short statement she 
>> suggested but I would also like to understand what reservations there 
>> are about the specific issues addressed in SAC101. Although there are 
>> items there that I was not previously aware of, as far as I can tell 
>> (and I may have missed something), all of their recommendations are 
>> in support of providing adequate access for security professionals.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 28/08/2018 04:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>>
>>     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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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> >
>>         napisaÃ…‚(a): As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has justt
>>         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
>>         <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
>>         <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>
>>         )
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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>
>>     )
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180828/0fbb268b/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list