Some time after the Affirmation of Commitments had been signed off I believe.
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of avri doria
Sent: 17 January 2018 05:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
Hi,
The components from the MOU were put into the bylaws as 4.6 (e) Registration Directory Service Review.
avri
On 16-Jan-18 17:07, John Carr wrote:
>
> In other words there was never a genuine intention to honour it. It
> was insincerely signed simply to get ICANN out of the clutches of the
> Federal Government?
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.
> microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C23ad18ca
> 6b594a78828c08d55d6d5af5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C
> 636517646609132033&sdata=ERBE9AIQXigQx36pjWYtStqph0hoAPSrqfLeSJqiPvg%3
> D&reserved=0> for Windows 10
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> *From:* Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:13:35 PM
> *To:* John Carr; [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* RE: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community
> Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
>
>
> The Affirmation of Commitments is an artifact of an ICANN subject to
> unilateral control by the US government. The Whois commitment in it
> reflects political pressure placed on the Commerce Department by
> US-based trademark and law enforcement interests. Post-transition, the
> Affirmation has no meaning or consequence other than what was agreed
> in the accountability reforms of 2016.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:*John Carr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 2:03 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>;
> [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* RE: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community
> Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
>
>
>
> In the “Affirmation of Commitments”” didn’t ICANN promise to maintain
> WHOIS as an accurate and public data base? Shouldn’t the objective be
> to stay as close to that as possible in every national jurisdiction
> where that is legally allowed?
>
>
>
> Or has ICANN decided that the promise it made in the Affirmation
> should now be formally abandoned or changed?
>
>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* 15 January 2018 16:24
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community
> Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
>
>
>
>
>
> I do not think we want to maximize the ability of registrars to
> conform to national law. ICANN was created specifically to be a global
> governance agency so that DNS would be globally compatible and the
> market for DNS services would be globally open and competitive.
> Encouraging variations in practices across jurisdictions moves us away
> from that goal.
>
>
>
> The simple solution to this dilemma is for Whois to conform narrowly
> to ICANN’s legitimate purpose in collecting the data and thus
> _/minimize/_ the data that it collects and makes publicly available.
> Thus, while I agree ICANN not should press for higher national privacy
> standards, I do agree with Ayden that if it minimizes what it collects
> and makes available it flies above the problem of jurisdictional
> variation. If specific jurisdictions want to regulate local registrars
> to force them to collect and/or disseminate more, that is
> (unfortunately) something they will have to deal with, but ICANN
> should make its global whois requirements well above the threshold
> that would violate the privacy laws of any country.
>
>
>
> In this respect ICANN is not the standard setter for all worldwide
> privacy, but it is, and is supposed to be, the global standard setter
> for DNS policy.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
> IGP_logo_gold block_email sig
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> internetgovernance.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3dd1a12959b643f67bc008d55c
> 34a8b6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636516303589985847
> &sdata=XX34ciGttsvyAXPD99%2F%2FC1jwcDyKMTh6mYtFW%2BmnryA%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *Paul Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 9:35 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community
> Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
>
>
>
> I tend to agree with Sam on this … the GDPR is a good standard, but it
> is not a universal standard. And just as we don’t want ICANN to be in
> the business of content regulation we don’t want it to be the standard
> setter for world wide privacy. Our goal should be to identify the
> minimum contractually necessary and then allow divergence across the
> globe. The more difficult question is what, precisely, that minimum
> is …
>
>
>
> P
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.redbranchconsu
> lting.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C23ad18ca6b594a78828c08d55d6d5af5%7C84df9e7
> fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636517646609132033&sdata=bGQRpLeJX
> Dy9z2SehSrTM4IZ6wXsgltTCvR9R3Rbydk%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> redbranchconsulting.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3dd1a12959b643f67bc008d55
> c34a8b6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63651630358998584
> 7&sdata=JmGak3hCCgog8E4O2e4aI7SQO%2FvbTITL19dKUYfcrjg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkeys
> .mailvelope.com%2Fpks%2Flookup%3Fop%3Dget%26search%3D0x9A830097CA06668
> 4&data=02%7C01%7C%7C23ad18ca6b594a78828c08d55d6d5af5%7C84df9e7fe9f640a
> fb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636517646609132033&sdata=5hqHvgJRX0R%2BdQa
> u2%2FYXrgiHKclF0vg2fYpTox2kFlM%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkey
> s.mailvelope.com%2Fpks%2Flookup%3Fop%3Dget%26search%3D0x9A830097CA0666
> 84&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3dd1a12959b643f67bc008d55c34a8b6%7C84df9e7fe9f640
> afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636516303589985847&sdata=wWQcZO1MhOrDHAlX
> 7uGqja0xhyYqjGzt00yxcVcXIRk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *Sam Lanfranco
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:59 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community
> Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
>
>
>
> Colleagues,
>
> I may have an overly simplistic view of the issue here, but I would
> like to put it on the table. ICANN has a narrow remit within the
> growing area of global, regional (e.g. EU), and national Internet
> governance. It exercises that remit through a serious of contracts
> with entities (registrars and registries) that operate under diverse
> national Internet governance jurisdictions.
>
> With differing specific data protection language in diverse contexts,
> it is highly unlikely that ICANN can draft “higher standard” contract
> language that will satisfy the data privacy regulations of all, most,
> or even many, national data privacy regimes. So, what is the path
> forward here?
>
> There seem to be two components of a path forward. First, ICANN must
> figure out how it exercises ICANN agency as a stakeholder in the
> various legislative policy venues in which data privacy and other
> Internet governance policy is debated and where regulations are
> formed. Some ICANN stakeholders already “have skin in those games” and
> are already present in those policy debates. ICANN writes contract
> language and needs to be engaged as a stakeholder.
>
> Second, in contrast to seeking “higher standard” contract language,
> ICANN may need to look for “minimum conditions” contract language that
> offers contracted parties maximum freedom to negotiate with and meet
> the conditions of national Internet governance policies. At the same
> time ICANN can use its agency as a stakeholder to press for “higher
> standard” national policies that harmonize regulations, and facilitate
> the work and interests of various stakeholders in the Internet ecosystem.
>
> In short, the path forward may be (a) more ICANN agency as a
> stakeholder, and (b) minimal contract language to maximize the ability
> of contracted parties to deal with national policies and regulations.
>
> Sam L.
>
>
>
> On 1/14/2018 10:02 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> Hi Caleb,
>
>
>
> While I appreciate that not all countries have data protection
> laws, privacy remains a fundamental human right. My suggestion is
> thus that we should adopt the highest level of protection for all
> domain name registrants. And I suspect it is a lot easier to
> implement one model, rather than fragmented models for different
> jurisdictions.
>
>
>
> Please also remember that ICANN sets policy by contract; i.e.
> registries, registrars, and registrants agree by contract to
> follow the rules and policies created by ICANN, and these policies
> can be revised and deleted. So while ICANN must of course comply
> with the law, it can adopt and impose a higher standard on the
> contracted parties.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Ayden
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject: Re: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking
> Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
>
> Local Time: 14 January 2018 3:56 PM
>
> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 14:56
>
> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Hello Badii and Ayden,
>
>
>
> For me, i think the Model 2A serves the purposes. Don't forget
> that not all countries have data protection laws or policy in
> place.
>
> Hence, based on jurisdiction, they cannot be governed by laws
> that is peculiar to a certain continent or sovereign state.
>
>
>
> Caleb Ogundele
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Ayden Férdeline
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I could live with the second model.
>
>
>
> The key differentiation between Model 2A and 2B is its
> applicability: 2A applies only "where the registrant,
> registry, registrar or a processor are located in the
> European Economic Area"; 2B "applies to all registrations
> on a global basis without regard to location of registry,
> registrar registrant, and processing activities"
>
>
>
> On this basis I think Model 2B is the best path forward.
> To have fragmented approaches for different regions would
> be a mistake, in my opinion.
>
>
>
> Given the short turnaround time here (we need to agree on
> a position and submit a comment by 29 January) and other
> obstacles between now and then (Intersessional, GNSO
> Council Strategic Planning Session), may I suggest that we
> schedule a call next week to discuss our response?
>
>
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking
> Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
>
> Local Time: 13 January 2018 7:40 PM
>
> UTC Time: 13 January 2018 18:40
>
> From: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Please see the CEO blog on Data protection and privacy:
>
>
>
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fnews%2Fblog%2Fdata-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models&data=02%7C01%7C%7C23ad18ca6b594a78828c08d55d6d5af5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636517646609132033&sdata=6EY2apP3tiRf6BDWDOC5hGyWyFxSZGQJVtvv9D5KpFo%3D&reserved=0
>
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
> .icann.org%2Fnews%2Fblog%2Fdata-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-
> community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3dd
> 1a12959b643f67bc008d55c34a8b6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7
> C0%7C636516303589985847&sdata=7h8a35c%2B3XtTan6p9CktIk29I609aKLp5e1%2B
> 8OGNlCk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> We should understand these models, discuss them and
> provide feedback.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb*
>
> *[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>/*
>
> */234 - 8077377378/*
>
> */234 - 07030777969/*
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state"
> -Confucius
> 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U.,
> Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Skype: slanfranco
> blog:
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsaml
> anfranco.blogspot.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C23ad18ca6b594a78828c08d55d6d5a
> f5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636517646609132033&sda
> ta=yMjAiHhslK0WjyjBn6AhDSvGuSWkieEn5Q2bvqtmhK4%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsam
> lanfranco.blogspot.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3dd1a12959b643f67bc008d55c34a
> 8b6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636516303590142118&sd
> ata=7qh0w0BkhwzoXXxrV3pFEGtGVsfYKzmIoU0UEMyyFKc%3D&reserved=0>
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
|
