Public Comment Name
Public Comment Close
Status
Penholder(s)
Submitted:
Note: Initial draft submitted to public comment; revised draft to follow after IGF.
Date: Tuesday, 11 November 2018
Time: 19:00 - 20:00 UTC For the time in various timezones click here
Meeting Number: AL.EU/CC.1120/1
https://participate.icann.org/euralo/
English Conference ID = 1638
Participants: Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Wale Bakare, Annette Mühlberg, Oksana Prykhodko, Natalia Filina, Joanna Kulesza, Yrjo Lansipuro, Jean Jacques Subrenat, Anne Marie Joly, Sebastien Bachollet, Philippe Batreau, Roberto Gaetano, Lianna Galstyan,
Apologies: Sandra Hoferichter, Matthias Hudobnik, Erich Schweighofer, Wolf Ludwig,
Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Claudia Ruiz
Call Management: Claudia Ruiz
ICANN Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Unified Access Model
The ALAC cited their prior statement from 10 April 2018 relating to the access of WHOIS, and offered (4) general comments on the proposed UAM: (1) Any access model must be compliant with the GDPR, and ICANN should obtain legal advice from expert counsel to confirm compliance; (2) Internet end user rights should be part of the calculus, including knowledge of email sender identity, et al; (3) The UAM design should be scalable and not overly-reliant upon manual updates, and should have a well-defined taxonomy of abuse types, et al. Once an agreed upon set of inputs and outcomes is established, an automated system may be created to respond to WHOIS requests; (4) The various harms taken into account when considering the UAM must be done so in a non-biased fashion.
Proposed gTLD-Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Profile
The ALAC recommends that ICANN adopt the RDAP quickly and effectively because they hold it is an essential step for ICANN to deploy a tiered-access model adequately. In addition, the ALAC recommends that ICANN address 5 ambiguities in the RDAP that are also present in the European Union's (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), noting them in the statement.
Next Steps on Reviews
The ALAC supports the proposed path forward for the ATRT3, while stating the consideration of how to streamline specific reviews to make them more effective and impactful is a low priority item for ATRT3. The ALAC encourages active community participation in formulating any recommendations in organizational reviews, and states that specific reviews operating standards should take a minimalist approach.
Current Statements (ALAC Advice, Comment or Correspondence)
Public Comment Name | Public Comment Close | Status | Penholder(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Draft PTI and IANA FY20 Operating Plan and Budgets | Submitted:
Note: Initial draft submitted to public comment; revised draft to follow after IGF. | ||
| |||
| Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT) Final Report & Recommendations |
| ||
| |||
| |||
|