[ALAC] Community Feedback on Proposed models for RDS - by the end of January

Tue Jan 16 20:55:17 UTC 2018

So I looked at the details laid out by Goran.  If you sat thru the EWG, it
would, as Yogi Berra is reputed to have said; 'de ja vu all over again'.
Because it parses - as did the EWG! -  and reformats the very arguments
used in deciding for 2-tiered access.  Which seems now to be the ascendant
model for a new RDDS, even as it recognizes a distributed data model with
separate data controllers. What the EWG favoured for reporting is
essentially,  Goran's Model 2.

First of all it is just too rich for my blood for ICANN org to say "ICANN
Org acknowledges that it is either expressed or implied in all of ICANN
Org’s agreements that the contracted party must comply with all applicable
laws" . If so, why the subterfuge of evasions, collusions and work-arounds
inherent to the Procedures for Handling WHOIS Conflicts and the exemptions
that must be applied for and granted? Maybe they will now accept my
declarations pertaining; it is nothing more than make work for lawyers.

Secondly, I cannot see the rationale for different data retention period
for the models.

So now, the argumentative parts:

It is clear that Model 3 would fix every data privacy/protection
jurisdictional requirement; safe and easy to implement. No, it isn't just
GDPR that has DP laws. There are others around the world inspired by GDPR
and its reciprocity language for data transfer that this solution would
neatly address. Unless of course the thinking is they don't count.

It is easy to make the argument that the WHOIS dataset could be collected
legally under colour of the GDPR calls 'legitimate interests' of the
registrar and indeed be shared with ICANN.  I don't so much see that as the
major hurdle.  The real hurdle to overcome is the declaration by WP29 that
in context of the domain name transaction, a registrant cannot be said to
have 'freely given' personal data for the transaction if, by not so giving,
it means the domain is not acquired.

My advice. Obfuscate and equivocate no further. We are yet to see a defined
policy in one place. Here's an opportunity to kill two birds with one
stone; provide guidance and say from the preponderance of facts and given
due consideration, ICANN org is for Model 2. Bam. Policy and prose declared
one shot in one place, the end.

-Carlton

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 11:36 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> In my mind, there is no question that we need to respond.
>
> The models are NOT what I was expecting, but that is not particularly
> relevant at this point. ICANN's challenge is to attempt to saitisfy data
> commissioners, who will not likely tell us ahead of time that they agree
> with us or not, But to do that while to the extent prossible, maintaining
> WHOIS so it can at least partially satisfy the ongoing important uses of
> WHOIS, particularly with respect to fighting DNS abuse and malicious
> activities.
>
> So for example, Model 3 certainly satisfies privacy concerns (although we
> could endlessly debate whether the expiration date is private information
> or not), but it shuts down virtually all other uses of WHOIS (including
> trade mark protection and the UDRP) and I find including it as one of the
> proposed models rather ludicrous. It is certainly easy to implement. And
> cheap.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 14/01/2018 03:24 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>
> So you do support responding - whatever it is called?
>
> Thanks
>
> Holly
> On 15 Jan 2018, at 7:15 am, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann at bachollet.fr>
> wrote:
>
> Yes Holly
> It is exactly what I was pointing out.
> SeB
>
>
> Le 14 janv. 2018 à 20:35, Holly Raiche < h.raiche at internode.on.net> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Sebastian
>
> I did read the words.  But seriously, he is asking for a response -
> whatever it is  called.  And given the importance of the issue, we should
> respond - whatever we call it.
>
> Holly
> On 15 Jan 2018, at 3:05 am, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann at bachollet.fr>
> wrote:
>
> No comment but feedback ;)
> "To help inform this, please provide *your feedback by 29 January 2018*.
> Please send your feedback to gdpr at icann.org. »
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-
> privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models
> SeB
>
> Le 14 janv. 2018 à 16:39, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn at gmail.com > a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Holly
> Interesting you mentioned this issue, two things to share with you
>
> 1.  NCUC did a session at the IGF and curious if anyone followed their
> tread. they had a good google doc on the issues
> 2. NARALO is having monthly hot topics during the second half of our
> monthly membership calls. I was thinking of this issue as a topic for March
> since I have Cybersecurity as the February topic.   I will need someone to
> level set the issue.  We had Net Neutrality for January
>
> Glenn
>
> Glenn McKnight
> NARALO Secretariat
> mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
> skype  gmcknight
> twitter gmcknight
> 289-830 6259 <(289)%20830-6259>
> .
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche < h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> wrote:
> Folks
>
> Two days ago, Goran’s blog posted ICANN’s proposed there models for
> addressing the issue of RDS information and the EU Data Protection rules.
> According to the blog, 'community input' is being sought - by the end of
> January.
>
> Given the significance of this discussion on the information that
> registries/registrars collect and display, I am assuming that ALAC will be
> making comments? We should, at the least, have a page on the wiki for
> comments???
>
> Holly
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>          1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:VKdvj5FaSMKqurXWxPSs+5KrD7bDD/
> z8Moc1vJY/5HGcetDlA7ssVCV/YElAUh7SGN24GFL4MjoTHmpx97pl9l
> jfUuFYftyzmxdiPED3xH0Yuhq0n312NRn8xUkI1sHN
> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:
>          jEucbbUatzmeUElwm8qHyl9PflMj0MX5zDILXM3lJZqNG+
> Qw6mRWfuvCa7BJkfZPBvWUFPdAfb+KZZ6q9cvWmtDVfaoxUVOj39PuvHHusgWHqVhxcOuKs+
> OgEvaoDljUn0N5yfBbgrkmusOJV/r0yA==
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180116/88320deb/attachment.html>