Instructions:
- Please use the <Edit Contents> menu option (directly above) to complete this form. Remember to <Save> the page (bottom right) after making updates.
- Travelers are asked to collaborate as a team in pulling together the appropriate information.
- This Trip Assessment form will be automatically associated with its related Proposal; therefore, no duplicate traveler identification information is required.
- The information fields are 'richtext' so that they can accommodate tables, links, images, attachments, and other formatting capabilities that may be useful in explaining/describing the Trip.
- This form may be edited/saved as many times as needed. When completed, please fill out the completion date in question no.4 on the form and notify your Program Coordinator (PC) for further processing.
Assessment Status |
Trip Assessments should be completed within three (3) weeks of the traveler's return date.
Trip Assessment Form | LINK TO TRIP PROPOSAL: IPC Trip Proposal 2 |
---|---|
1) Describe the Trip in sufficient detail | The Protagonists: All the above are closely involved in the IPC's CROP ICANN62 process. This ICANN CROP funded trip commenced at Los Angeles Airport on June 25, 2018 [WHEN] by Copa Airlines for Panama City [WHERE]. Unfortunately the immigration lines were long and tardy and I could not reach the IPC outreach planning cocktails at the American Trade Hotel. However I met up with the protagonists and all of IPC leadership and membership as well as key persons in other communities [WHO] over the next 3 days. The objective of the CROP trip was to attend key sessions impacting IPC members specifically and ICANN constituencies generally specifically under the GDPR legislation and utilize the ‘in person’ opportunity to align any divergence in their approach to Access to WHOIS data [WHAT] and work on the ongoing IPC goal of expanding and increasing the diversity of its membership; and meet up with Work Track 5 gTLD SubPro Working Group to understand the tardy progress on geo names [WHY]. Since CROP funding was for 3 nights I had to depart ICANN62 on June 28, 2018 by the evening flight. This report tries to capture the extent to which the Proposed CROP Goals were accomplished. |
2) Explain the extent to which the Proposed Goals and Outcomes were accomplished (see above LINK to review the original Proposal): | This report tries to capture the extent to which the Proposed CROP Goals were accomplished. The focus was to lock in an access model to WHOIS which will pass muster the GDPR authorities i.e. ideally allow disclosure of personal data via the access model. Work in Progress on various approaches including Accreditation, Temp Sec and Unified Access Model. But no definitive clearance yet received for any any of the models from GDPR authorities. So effectively WHOIS is dark. Report: My initial comment is the communique is not very helpful in resolving the Access imbroglio for several reasons: 1. GAC seems to have rejected the Temp Spec initiatives and 2. Intentionally or otherwise compelled compliance of GDPR until the Unified Access Model is given birth - which is not happening in any hurry anyways and 3. Given no guarantees that the UAM will pass muster Article 29 parties when it is eventually born and 4. Tossed the ball back by cryptically stating that the ICANN board has not complied with 4 of its previous communique advice (San Juan communique advice reproduced below) without stating which of those were violated by ICANN. Extracts from San Juan icann61 communique: Furthermore, 27 830-9 GNSO Policy Briefing Elaborate overview touching upon URS, TMCH, EPDP. Very informative for newbies and old hands! 27 1330-1400 GAC Contracted Parties A voice was raised about the unclear nature of the term reasonable access used in Temp Sec. Can the contracted parties decide that? A contra voice was also raised that under the current scenario a person with legitimate interest can always access WHOIS. The question which went begging was are the contracted parties willing to make that call? 27 1515-1645 CSG Open Meeting Goran Marby held the fort. Firstly he emphasized that ICANN does not hold any WHOIS data, a statement challenged by a few participants; then went on to toss the Unified Access Model as a possible panacea to the darkened WHOIS. End of the day no risk free accessibility to WHOIS data was adopted nor any ICANN policy to ensure unrestricted or even regulated but risk free WHOIS access seems imminent; and until that evolves with the GDPR authorities (DPA) categorically approving some ICANN access model (which Marby says has so far not been done by DPAs) or the German courts decide whether WHOIS should remain open or to what extent or under which condition, IPC brand owners face the handicap of not having details of whom to prosecute. 27 9-1015 Tucow A presentation by internet service providers offering risk free tiered access to WHOIS data but restricted to domains on their platform. Need to read their fine print (which was not made available at the session) before one can be sure it’s viable. 28 9-1015 BC Open Meeting: The conflicts in GDPR advice received by various stakeholders including ICANN and GAC is an area who JJ admits awaits resolution. Temp spec was also raised but whether any access model would qualify as compliant under GDPR is a question no one seemed to have an answer to. 28 1330-15 WG SubPro gTLD: Focus was ‘non capital city’ names. After traversing Preapp phase, Evaluation, GAC advice, Control, Universal protection, NOC and Intended use and how to differentiate geographic and non geographic use - control the former and let go the latter, no answers were provided where to draw the dividing line and no clarity emerged on who will be the arbiter of what is a ‘non capital city’ name in the geographic sense while processing an application seeking it as as a TLD. Work seems to be cut out for WT5 which has has to turn in its final recommendations by 2019 Q2. Met the ICANN India Head and followed up with India GAC representatives attempting to align ICANN INTA and IPC thinking with GACs. In conversation with GACs from India as well as INTA subcommittees on ICANN issues aiming to harmonize any conflicting positions. Reaching out to various non ICANN individuals and decision making brand owners due to my extensive law practice and professional association memberships to educate them about the relevance and importance of supporting ICANN as the only sane alternate to chaos on the internet. |
3) Additional information pertaining to this outreach Trip (optional): | GDPR was THE flavor of ICANN62. In my observation though lot of time and energy has been spent on finding solutions to preventing a DARK WHOIS, the multistakeholders are nowhere close to any uncomplicated and reiskfree access model mainly because the GDPR authorities are not validating any model that ICANN is presenting them with. Apart from making polite voices and seemingly supporting ICANN the GAC and their Governments don't seem to ratify the access models like Temp Sec etc to date. Also see https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/180325/1530616978.pdf?1530616978 |
4) Please fill out the date when you have completed this form: | 05-Jul-2018 |
Note: To be completed by a Program Coordinator (PC) designated by this organization/structure.
Acknowledgements | Confirmed? | Name | Date | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Trip Assessment information has been gathered and properly entered into this form. | Yes | Chantelle Doerksen | 12-Jul-2018 | On behalf of Aslam Mohamed |
The ICANN Organization / Structure's leadership has authorized the submission of this Trip Assessment. | Yes | Chantelle Doerksen | 12-Jul-2018 | On behalf of IPC Leadership |
The ICANN Stakeholder Engagement Vice-President has concurred that this Trip Assessment satisfactorily reports the extent to which the goals/outcomes outlined in the original proposal have been achieved. | ||||
=============== | ========== | ============================== |
CROP Trip Assessment Template (May 2017)