<html>
<body>
The deadline set was Friday, 20 April 2018 at 4PM UTC.<br><br>
<br>
At 20/04/2018 08:22 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">And, I would add, let everyone
have a final chance to view the statements.<br><br>
And I’m not sure why it is too late - Evin said the deadline was the
20th<br><br>
Holly <br><br>
Begin forwarded message:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>From: </b>Holly Raiche
<<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">
h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>><br>
<b>Subject: Re: [Accred-Model] Comment - Alan Greenberg</b><br>
<b>Date: </b>21 April 2018 9:52:53 am AEST<br>
<b>To: </b>Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
><br><br>
Please see what I have just done<br><br>
On 21 Apr 2018, at 9:50 am, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Holly, I don't set the
deadlines. Regarding Jonathan's posted comment on the Article 29 letter,
we can tell them to withdraw it if there is a consensus to do
so.<br><br>
Regarding my comment, I said there was no agreement in the ALAC and
posted it on my own behalf. I have since been told it was submitted to
late and will not be considered for this pass.<br><br>
The NCSG statement does not talk about the model as such but the basis
for its existence. It ignores the phrase "or ny a third party"
in Article 6, section 1e of the Regulations which allow the needs of a
third party to be considered, and it PRESUMES that the privacy needs with
out-weigh the needs for access to provide for the safety and security of
the Internet. That is a presumption that I do not agree with. The NCSG
strongly objects to a model originating in the BC/IPC. I on the other
hand welcome ANYONE working on such a model and specifically would
welcome it being transferred to the community as a whole if there were
any interest.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
At 20/04/2018 06:32 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Alan <br><br>
I see a lot wrong with it - and I see a lot that I disagree with in
Jonathan’s first draft. I have been tied up teaching, but finally
have a bit of time to put my thoughts down - and I decidedly do NOT think
the IPC/BC is a great model. For a very different view, read the
NCSG response- attached. So PLEASE - give people at least a bit
more time to look at what Jonathan’s response - and mine.<br><br>
Holly<br><br>
<br>
On 21 Apr 2018, at 8:20 am, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This comment has been circulated
within the ALAC and At-Large, but there has not been sufficient time to
decide to what extent if it fully accepted. As such, it is being
submitted here purely on my personal behalf.<br><br>
===============<br><br>
There has been significant community comment that this proposal was
originally (and to some extent still is) a creature of the BC. <br><br>
I APPLAUD that the BC/IPC have taken the initiative to do this! I and
many of us have been saying for several months (certainly starting before
the Abu Dhabi meeting) that the accreditation model is an absolute key to
moving forward. <br><br>
The BC/IPC have done something and put it down on paper. Bravo!<br><br>
I think this model is a great start.<br><br>
I see problems with it, but we need to start the discussion somewhere.
What do I see as problematic?
<ul>
<li>I think the provision to give access to "All users", while
it would be nice for me personally, is more than a bit loose. We are
going to need something MUCH stronger to grant access over and above the
other accredited channels.
<li>A single tier is not sufficient. There should be more granularity
based on the uses. Perhaps we could start with this single and improve
later, but my preference would be to use the use-cases we have already
built to provide more than one few tier (ie more than just a) thin WHOIS,
or b) ALL of the data.)
<li>I look forward to the work that the document says the SSAC is doing
regarding credentialization.
<li>I STRONGLY support the
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84213851/APWG-GDPR-Accreditationplancomments-5April2018-0001.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1524004586000&api=v2">
comments from the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG)</a>. These comments
make the model more effective and implementable. The only one I find
possible questionable related to funding the accreditation process.
Although I would prefer that it is an integral part of the DNS and WHOIS
(and thus funded by ICANN through its normal sources), I would not want
to see implementation delayed over this issue.
</ul>_______________________________________________<br>
Accred-Model mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accred-Model@icann.org">Accred-Model@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accred-model" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accred-model</a></blockquote><br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:PKJyDSpsleGA7L6y7RiwBWziWgjRyLKmjJE77denCviuJRonQvhayYu4Jsewrfvt4fIHBqSNNWOBEgH6tcsIpx/yB9IZo4nij6rTRL0swEKjjZoAA+vJDEXnuDHQVhGx<br>
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
t7CF4QknGdnCrBtkrn++DCPtIcMwWyxRraaDjbfhq11S3RQdLImsQGC2GtWCSFDrPmNQZou5n5JOlIuZQTOUBeQ6sQP2XaMw7THt/ZDwIDenl+SOx7PZdl8RT4FTdnfTp/o4mTusjq+jfUg8j0l7XQ8HEt8bxT5NHcOqaTSTYFtk/vpY7ogBepV2zUJGrYg40WdJ0o25loPiwyTUj8HJYbr2Fe+CKcEgU+hnYA8On9dj3/MLRrpl2k68WmjhHUAAbq7D+I0Zd3qoD7VB+giyXyNE7P9Pbc8O9hhUzK5L7ztLe5U+grXCSXN8QwH8x0SK7zdFFWywE/MuzgZaGBNAXe2gFr/MWGrv8LmqxMBBFuJzm0dOX+uV77Xdy2Hd9atmu+cU98j8e/5nhFGPnSPEGXWnQK8s2eN7feivbEPsxoZl2a1LBTOAfi0iFxUxh5s5H/THLm7kN3GI29E6blMhZA==<br>
Content-Type:
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
name="NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement
Final.docx"<br>
Content-Description: NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement<br>
Final.docx<br>
Content-Disposition: attachment;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
filename="NCSG Comments to Draft IPC_BC Purpose Statement
Final.docx";<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
size=36187; creation-date="Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:33:49 GMT";<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
modification-date="Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:33:49 GMT"<br>
Content-ID:
<<a href="mailto:ED1DF51241BD3343915D6F3ABE3B1724@CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
ED1DF51241BD3343915D6F3ABE3B1724@CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM</a>
></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>