[At-Large] R: R: Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon Aug 5 02:36:45 UTC 2013


Great comments Roberto.

There are other parts of this puzzle that are technical but what we should be doing is setting some high level principles - and looking to our technical experts who may have for better ways to solve some of the issues

Holly


On 05/08/2013, at 11:25 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Holly,
> This is where the ALAC advice can be different from the WG members' advice.
> While the WG might be struggling with implementation issues, ALAC, being an
> advisory body on *policy* and not on *implementation*, shall concentrate on
> the requirements for the database.
> In short, we can require that the data shall be retrieved only via the
> interface. Or set benchmark criteria.
> I don't believe we can get into geopolitics, and name countries that should
> not "own" the database.
> As for the technical solution, whether the database is located in a country
> that has specific privacy rights prevailing over judge orders, or whether
> the database is split in parts that are distributed in different countries
> so that no one country can have the full information on any registrant, that
> is beyond our mandate.
> Long story short, I agree with your approach.
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> PS: At some point in time we need to deal also with the fact that EU laws
> prohibit the transfer of personal data outside Europe without the consent of
> the registrant
> 
> 
>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>> Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-
>> bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Holly Raiche
>> Inviato: lunedì 5 agosto 2013 02:37
>> A: At-Large Worldwide
>> Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] R: Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013
>> 
>> Thank you Karl and Roberto for your comments
>> 
>> Roberto, the location of the ARDS is absolutely front and centre as an
> issue.
>> Some of the immediate comments  I heard was to insist the database NOT be
>> located in the US (followed by a long list of other undesirable
> locations).  I
>> would imagine places like Geneva or Brussels (or Finland) would be more
>> easily accepted.  But I think the better solution is to describe the venue
> in
>> terms of strict and enforceable (and enforced) privacy laws. - set
> benchmark
>> criteria at the least.
>> 
>> Other issues that were discussed on the day included enforcement - by
>> whom (ICANN's compliance department has not covered itself with glory on
>> this one), and defining who can have access to what data.
>> 
>> Holly
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 05/08/2013, at 10:13 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> 
>>> I can provide one point for thoughts, that ALAC might think to include
>>> in the feedback.
>>> During the presentation, and in the text of the report, there is a
>>> description of how to design access to data in a way that it will be
>>> dependent on the rights the accessing entity has.
>>> However, there is one entity that might gain full access to all data,
>>> and this is the government of the country where the database will be
>>> physically located.
>>> I had a chat with Michele on this, and he assured me that this is one
>>> point that came already out, and will be discussed to find an acceptable
>> solution.
>>> I have no clue about the dynamics of the WG, I am sure, knowing
>>> Carlton, that our points have been expressed loudly, but maybe a
>>> little help from an official ALAC statement can help.
>>> Let's put it this way: other constituencies and stakeholder groups
>>> will not be shy in making statements that will push further their
>>> opinion and needs, beyond what was the acceptable consensus of the WG:
>>> why should ALAC avoid providing feedback? Michele is absolutely right
>>> when he calls for further input, he knows some will speak up anyway, it
> is
>> fair if all do.
>>> Elaborating on the localization of the database, that we know is an
>>> issue, is there something we can suggest? We do not need to provide
>>> the technical solution, but can we spell out the requirements for
>>> making sure that no specific entity will be more equal than others?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Roberto
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>>>> Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-
>>>> bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Holly Raiche
>>>> Inviato: domenica 4 agosto 2013 23:08
>>>> A: At-Large Worldwide
>>>> Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Carlton
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for this.
>>>> 
>>>> My one concern about ALAC not developing its own input is that, at
>>>> the GNSO meeting Evan and I attended (and where Michele presented),
>>>> he specifically asked, indeed pleaded for feedback from everyone.
>>>> 
>>>> I am sure that you will be taking the views that we have discussed to
>>>> the EWG. But I think my question is whether it would not make sense
>>>> to have official ALAC input on this particular proposal.  It is
>>>> different enough
>>> so that
>>>> ALAC statements in the past are not applicable to this proposal.   And,
> as
>>> the
>>>> discussion between Garth, you, Evan, Rinalia and I showed in Durban,
>>>> there are different views on the proposal within  ALAC.
>>>> 
>>>> For example, should we give the many reforms to the RAA a chance to
>>>> work first? Should compliance be left to the compliance area within
>>>> ICANN or to this new proposed ARDS?  And what happens to the RAA
>>>> requirements on verification if the ARDS takes over that function, as
>>>> well as being the gatekeeper for access to data.  It is a new road
>>>> with much to commend it
>>> but,
>>>> as our discussions showed, some real reservations, and some real
>>>> differences even within ALAC.
>>>> 
>>>> I trust you to reflect those differences, but worry that you don't
>>>> have
>>> official
>>>> ALAC statements to support what you are saying.
>>>> 
>>>> Just please keep us informed of ongoing discussions.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Holly
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 05/08/2013, at 6:23 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Holly:
>>>>> I should think not; this was an advisory and in any event, we have
>>>>> spoken often and endorsed the collection of the entire dataset as
>>>>> defined in the specs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regarding the EWG work, there was talk of placing an official ALAC
>>>>> response to invitation for comments.  Since I'm a member of the EWG,
>>>>> speaking aloud to myself might very well be considered just desserts
>>>>> in some quarters and as such not to be encouraged. So I will exempt
>>> myself
>>>> from that process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> -Carlton
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ==============================
>>>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>>>>> =============================
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Holly Raiche
>>>> <h.raiche at internode.on.net>wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Carlton
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It doesn't look like they are looking for any input from anyone -
>>>>>> except registrars. Am I right?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And a related question - is ALAC making a statement of the EWG
>>>>>> Initial Report.  I don't see anything on the policy page, but my
>>>>>> understanding was that they were looking for feedback?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Holly
>>>>>> On 02/08/2013, at 2:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> See the details here:
>>>>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-
>>>> 31jul13-en.h
>>>>>>> tm
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Carlton
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ==============================
>>>>>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>>>>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>>>>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>>>>>>> =============================
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> At-Large mailing list
>>>>>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> At-Large mailing list
>>>>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> At-Large mailing list
>>>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>>>> 
>>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> At-Large mailing list
>>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>>> 
>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> At-Large mailing list
>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>> 
>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> 
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org




More information about the At-Large mailing list