<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Thanks Tijani<div><br></div><div>Hopefully, we can work on a response to the IPC/BC model soon. I worry that it is the only model for access under debate - we need to make this a broader conversation</div><div><br></div><div>Holly<br><div><div>On 8 Apr 2018, at 4:39 pm, Tijani BEN JEMAA <<a href="mailto:tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com">tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><font color="#002e7a" class="">Good morning Holly,</font><div class=""><font color="#002e7a" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font color="#002e7a" class="">I agree with you about the purpose: you should remember that in San Juan, I said that the purpose definition of the interim model is so broad and merit to be reconsidered. The IPC/BC one is worse.</font></div><div class=""><font color="#002e7a" class="">As for access for accredited parties, it was my understanding that it should be conditioned by a documented suspicion of unlawful or harmful action or behavior. I noted that this is not the intention.</font></div><div class=""><font color="#002e7a" class=""> </font><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class="">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><b class=""><span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class="">Tijani BEN JEMAA</span></b></div><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class="">Executive Director</span></div><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class="">Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (</span><b style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class="">FMAI</b><span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class="">)</span></div><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class="">Phone: +216 98 330 114</span></div><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class=""> </span> <span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class=""> +216 52 385 114</span></div><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class="">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div class=""><span style="color: rgb(54, 95, 145);" class=""><br class=""></span></div></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Le 8 avr. 2018 à 06:41, Holly Raiche <<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net" class="">h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>> a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>378</o:Words>
<o:Characters>2156</o:Characters>
<o:Company>ISOC-AU</o:Company>
<o:Lines>17</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>4</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>2647</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><p class="MsoNormal">Folks</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""> </o:p>As we said in the ALAC Statement on the GDPR – now being
voted upon – one of the outstanding critical issues will be accreditation of
those who are given access to personal information from the Whois database. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""> </o:p>The IPC/BC community within the GNSO has developed a ‘<i class="">Draft Accreditation and Access Model for
non-public Whois Data</i>’ which
they are putting forward for discussion.
Indeed, they recently held a webinar on the model – at the usually
impossible time for Australia. They have also set up a mailing list on the
issue and the documents they used for the webinar are supposed to be available
for those on the mailing list. (I haven’t seen them as yet)</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""> </o:p>The first thing to note about that model is that is that it
is very much the creature of the IPC/BC constituency. The NCSG were not consulted and are developing their
response to the accreditation model.
My understanding is that the Registries/Registrars also did not provide
input into that model. We should also comment - either through a Google Doc or on the wiki, but - in a very short space of time - we should be developing at least some response to the IPC/BC proposal. No response to their model could otherwise be taken as tacit community consent to its proposals. </p><p class="MsoNormal"> My two major issues with the model are as below.
Please feel free to comment as well.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""> </o:p>My basic issue with their Access Model is that it confuses
data ‘use’ with the ‘purpose’ of collection. Under basic data protection law, personal information can
only be collected for specified and legitimate purposes <b class="">of the data collector</b>
(ICANN and registrars) and not further processed in ways
inconsistent with the legitimate
purpose(s). The ALAC has suggested
that feedback from the European DPAs will assist in determining the purposes
consistent with ICANN and the Registries purpose in collection of that data.
The purpose suggested in the Interim Model is not as broad as suggested by this
Access Model and, in my view, preferable. (See Annex A, Access Model).</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""> </o:p>The Access Model proposed suggests that, once parties are
accredited, they would gain access to all the Whois Information. In my view, any access to personal
information should be <b class="">in limited
circumstances only</b> - that
blanket access not be given. In a
law enforcement context, search warrants generally need some kind of judicial
sanction, based on apprehension of possible criminality, before premises can be
searched and/or persons apprehended. While an access request test probably
would not be quite that stringent, I could not support access seekers being
given blanket permission to access personal information generally; there should
be a requirement for reasonable grounds to suspect unlawful or harmful action
in specific circumstances (carefully defined) before access given. </p><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Holly</div>
<!--EndFragment--></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">ALAC mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org" class="">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br class=""><a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br class=""><br class="">At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<br class="">ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>