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 >> >> >> >> >> > >