Agreed.
Nicolas
On 2015-10-11 10:54 AM, James Gannon wrote:
> I reached out to some of the registrars and they are not aware of any
> formal process that LEAs would go through on the ICANN side, the
> process appears to be to merely forward straight to the registrar with
> no direct engagement with the LEA in question. We can/should put this
> question to Allan Grogan when he visits us as I think its an
> interesting one.
>
> -Jaes
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Rafik Dammak
> Reply-To: Rafik Dammak
> Date: Sunday 11 October 2015 at 2:49 p.m.
> To: "[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> Subject: Re: DIDP Analysis
>
> Hi Tamir,
>
> 2015-10-11 4:10 GMT+09:00 Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Thanks Rafik,
>
> On second though, I think you are probably right. I know for .CA,
> LEA requests go directly to CIRA but now that I think about it, it
> must be because of the way our WHOIS is setup. It would make sense
> for LEA requests to go to registrars rather than ICANN.
>
>
> ccTLD space is another world, even more diverse and unknwon :)
>
> If that's the case though then, as you say, it might still be
> worth exploring transparency reports, even if these end up coming
> from the GAC or are imposed onto registrars via ICANN policy. As
> an accountability mechanism, these reports are becoming fairly
> standard to have in the telecommunications context..
>
>
> ICANN sounds receiving requests and it happened that its teams get
> involved in some operations which raised the issue about the expansion
> of ICANN remit .
>
>
> Not sure if the DIDP process is the most appropriate mechanism for
> it though. Any thoughts on how something like that could be moved
> forward (or reasons why it should not be moved forward) would be
> appreciated.. There might be a clearer picture of how to design
> such a thing after the dublin meeting (which, regrettably, I
> cannot attend).
>
>
> maybe not but the transparency report seems a good framework to start
> with if we talk about compliance and abuse reports. I won't think
> that ICANN should push the registrars and registries for a specific
> way to do it , but if we can work the contracted parties on that
> matter it will be worthy to explore. there are already some
> guidelines/principles/ framework that we can suggest here to
> registries and registrars. such transparency would protect more users
> interests.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> On 10/10/2015 9:28 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Tamir,
>> 2015-10-10 2:11 GMT+09:00 Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>
>> Perhaps a single independent commissioner-type may make the
>> most sense.
>> The trick I think would be to ensure independence. That tends
>> to be
>> easier to do if there are more than one, because you can
>> allocate one
>> per stakeholder group. Still, I think by encoding some
>> criteria (no
>> strong industry or ICANN affil for 2 years back or something;
>> nomination
>> committee w/CS representation; dedicated funding for
>> independence) it
>> can be done.
>>
>> Another quick thought here: I did not see a proactive
>> disclosure section
>> in the document. Would it be worth adding?
>>
>> Related, does anyone know if ICANN handles law enforcement
>> requests or
>> whether these are handled by the registrars? If so, it would
>> seem that
>> including the obligation to issue annual LEA transparency
>> reports would
>> not be out of line.
>>
>>
>>
>> to be honest, it is unclear how ICANN handle direct requests from
>> LEA, while we may get more information from registrars on the
>> type of requests they get.
>> there is some work going with the new Compliance Chief Officer
>> regarding how to handle requests or abuse reports (but not
>> necessarily LEA) . here a blog post with some updates
>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-steps-to-combat-abuse-and-illegal-activity
>> (there are 2 sessions at ICANN meeting in wednesday 21st Oct
>> https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-practices-combating-abuse
>> & https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-compliance
>> . I invited weeks ago The Compliance Chief Officer to come to
>> NCSG meeting in Tuesday 20th Oct so we can discuss with him.
>>
>> I would highlight that LEAs have their GAC Public Safety working
>> group and it has several sessions in Dublin meeting too. that was
>> shared by the LEAs representatives who came to NCSG meeting in
>> Buenos Aires. it will be interesting to see what they are
>> planning to do and push for.
>>
>> definitely, the idea of LEA transparency reports should be
>> suggested .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/7/2015 8:46 AM, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
>> > That's a very interesting idea. I feel like the structure
>> of appeals
>> > is probably the trickiest conceptual aspect of improving
>> the DIDP, so
>> > good to consider alternatives. I think in part it would
>> depend on the
>> > level of demand for information that ICANN gets, and how
>> often appeals
>> > go forward. It's also important to bear in mind that,
>> whoever is
>> > deciding these things, they need to have access to absolutely
>> > everything ICANN has, and a high level of familiarity with
>> the inner
>> > workings of ICANN, so that they could determine, for
>> example, whether
>> > particular information would compromise the integrity of
>> ICANN's
>> > deliberative and decision-making process in line with the
>> second
>> > defined condition for nondisclosure.
>> >
>> > This is in addition to the qualities Karel mentions
>> (robust, cost
>> > effective, timely appeals) - which I also fully agree with.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Tamir Israel
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> >> On 10/6/2015 1:02 PM, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
>> >>> This sort of brings us back to a fundamental challenge
>> with reforming ICANN's
>> >>> access to information system, which is the need for some
>> sort of analogous independent branch (I'm not completely
>> certain the Ombudsman fits the bill).
>> >> On this point, I'm not sure how far we dare go here, but
>> would it be
>> >> unreasonable to set up an arb panel comparable to the ones
>> private ones
>> >> used for the UDRP (only, of course, appointed by a
>> cross-stakeholder
>> >> nomination committee and with strict independence
>> criteria) for
>> >> evaluating such things?
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Tamir
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|