Hi Tamir, 2015-10-11 4:10 GMT+09:00 Tamir Israel <[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]>: > >> 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]> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >