Logo

SSAD ODP Project Update Webinar #5 - Shared screen with speaker view
Eleeza Agopian
28:41
Hi Jonathan. 🙂
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
28:46
hello everyone
Andrea Glandon
30:47
Hello, my name is Andrea Glandon and I will be monitoring this chat room. Please note that questions or comments will only be read aloud if submitted in English within the Q&A pod. They will be read aloud at the end of the presentation. Questions and comments placed in chat will be considered as part of the “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone.Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.
Andrea Glandon
30:57
Audio streaming in Zoom will be in English. To listen and speak English during the session, simply join via Zoom.To listen and speak a language other than English, please join via the ICANN Adigo Dial-in Number List (https://www.adigo.com/icann) and enter your language ID:English: 9001French: 9002Spanish: 9003Chinese: 9004Russian: 9005Arabic: 9006You will also need to join the Zoom session to follow the presentation, see the comments or questions in the chat.
Maxim Alzoba
30:59
Hello all
Alfredo Calderon
31:46
Thank You @Andrea for the information.
Emilio Freitas
32:12
Thanks!!!
Herb Waye
32:13
Greetings from the Office of the Ombudsman. Hope everyone is doing well. ombudsman@icann.org
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
32:33
Thank @Andrea
Ciapha Mandemasa
32:35
Greetings to allI’m Ciapha G. Mandemasa form Liberia
Gopal Tadepalli
33:44
Greetings. - Dr. T V Gopal, Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Guindy Campus, Anna University , Chennai, INDIA.
Andrea Glandon
33:54
Reminder to all speakers to speak slowly
Francis-Olivier CUBAHIRO
35:51
Gretings from BurundiMinistry of ICT / Burundi GAC
Nigel Hickson
35:54
Good afternoon
Rick Lane
38:22
Is there a link to the ppt being discussed? Thanks
Diana Middleton (ICANN Org)
39:10
The presentation will be published online along with the recording after the presentation
Rick Lane
39:35
Thanks
Diana Middleton (ICANN Org)
39:51
After the *webinar
Cole Quinn
41:37
Clarifying question about the projected schedule: are the 5-6 year estimates inclusive or exclusive of the ~24 month policy language development phase?
Rick Lane
41:46
Will those surveys being made public?
Rick Lane
41:53
be made
ALIFA ABOUNA MAHAMAT
42:03
Hello everyone, for civil society from Chad
Jonathan Zuck
42:31
@Cole, they said inclusive
Andrea Glandon
42:32
Reminder to post all questions in the Q&A pod. Thank you
Cyntia King
42:37
Have yu surveyed the potential requestors? That seems lke the key variable in the cost estimates.
Nigel Hickson
43:26
These are significant ranges
Nigel Hickson
45:01
On "Requesters" were not rough numbers provided through GAC?
Alan Greenberg
47:14
So nearly half of the projected costs are within ICANN.org?
Cyntia King
49:39
@Nigel -Even if GAC povided some estimates, it seems prudent to survey the gruop at the bottomm of the key variable
Alan Greenberg
50:52
There was no requirement for ICANN to recover the full costs of development.
Alex Deacon
51:27
+1 Alan G.
Cyntia King
51:37
Thanks for that clarification, @Alan Greenberg
Alex Deacon
51:37
+1 Alan G.
Maxim Alzoba
51:51
Alan, there is no ICANN money. It's either registrant money or SSAD user money, regardless of how many indirection levels the money traverses.
Cyntia King
53:31
Just a quick laugh that the SSAD is concerned about natural/legal status of Requestors while the policy has not required this differentiation in Whois
Goran Marby
54:12
The PDP states that the cost should be paid by the users of the system
Cyntia King
54:59
@Maxim - the huge sums delivered to ICANN from the last ruond of gTLDs has put huge sums into ICNN coffers
Andrea Glandon
55:17
Goran, please change your chat to everyone and resend your message. Thank you
Goran Marby
55:43
The PDP states that the cost should be paid by the users of the system
Jeff Neuman
55:44
So 2 years for IRT, 3-4 years for development (5-6 years); So, earliest release would be 2027-2028?
Maxim Alzoba
55:55
@Cyntia, unfortunately those are not cash and may end up being just papers
Michael Palage
56:37
@Jeff - that seems about right. Elon Musk will land humans on Mars before ICANN can implement SSAD - that is kind of a ssad reality :-(
Maxim Alzoba
56:51
Every penny paid by new gTLD applicants for ICANN last resort auctions will be charged from registrants of those TLDs. So, either way, registrants pay.
Cyntia King
57:04
@Maxim - plenty of upfront $ went directlly to ICANN accounts. Incuding $ for gTLD auctions.
Maxim Alzoba
57:19
Michael, does SSAD stand for So SAD ?
Frank Anati
57:21
hi everyone Frank Anati from Ghana 🇬🇭 , https://www.linkedin.com/in/frank-anati
Michael Palage
58:32
@Maxim - double entendre - my attempt at a bit of humor
Cyntia King
59:15
@Maxim - The operating cash of any organization eventually comes from consumers. Your point?
Maxim Alzoba
59:17
@Cynthia, check the fin plans on how much are invested in papers
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:20
None of those consumers asked for SSAD. To the contrary, they would prefer no WHOIS and no SSAD at all. EPDP established a clear "requester pays" model.
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:27
trusting third parties to identify someone is a bad joke - legal burden is not removed
Amr Elsadr
01:00:51
@Cyntia: Aren’t the consumers of the SSAD the data requestors/SSAD users?
Cyntia King
01:01:04
@Maxim - the fact that there's more money coming doesn't detract from the large sums already received.
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:28
there is no way for contracted parties not to use their own systems/mail
Cyntia King
01:01:53
@Maxim - No SSAD & no WHOIS? You area suggesting there be no accountabililty at all?
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:34
centralized outside system does not leave traces, so CPs will have to use something to protect their interests and something leaving traces on their side
Viacheslav Erokhin
01:03:03
“SSAD will NOT guarantee data disclosure or provide predictability of disclosure” This is a serious reason to think about the cost of the solution and value.
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:05
I am not suggesting that, just reckoning what domain registrants would prefer. Which is one of the main reasons behind EPDP definition of who would pay.
Andrea Glandon
01:03:07
Reminder to change your chat to everyone
Cyntia King
01:03:31
@Amr - the beneficiaries of SSAD are consumers. ALl consumers. People & companies who should protected from the criminals preying upon them.. THAT is who SSAD is for.
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:33
@Cyntia , accountability is an operational/legal idea, and might not be relevant to the tech system
Andrea Glandon
01:04:00
Jan, please change your chat to everyone and resend your message. Thank you
Jan Jansen
01:04:10
Apologies.
Jan Jansen
01:04:35
So are we on our way to a "SSAD v2" which is a much simpeler much more cost effective, efficient, ticket like system that makes live easier on everyone involved ? That is what I understood the EPDP was actually requesting.
Stephanie Perrin
01:04:41
Instead of saying “declining users” you might wish to say “shrinking user base”. Given that we are talking about requests that might be declined in a later process….it is a wee bit confusing. Just an editing thought....
Owen Smigelski
01:05:24
@Cyntia: whois prior to GDPR is dead, and we need to work together to find a solution that complies with the law. It’s not about hiding accountability, it’s about complying with data privacy laws that carry significant penalties.
Cyntia King
01:06:00
@Maxim - I am a domain registrant w/ almost 100 domains. From my perspective, accountability is a key factor in protecting me & my names. I don't know who you imagine you're speakinig for, but it's not all registrants.
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:31
@Cyntia, a registry and registrar
Amr Elsadr
01:06:47
@Cyntia: by that rationale, should all Internet users be somehow charged? Via agreements between ICANN and ISP, mobile Internet providers, etc…? I can’t imagine that anyone would agree to that. Just like registrants pay for domain name registration fees, TM holders pay for TMCH services, SSAD needs to be paid for by people who elect to use it.
Rick Lane
01:06:54
That was my point four years ago. ICANN cannot solve the GDPR/Whois problem.
Cyntia King
01:07:07
@Maxim - accountability is absolutely relevent to systems used by the general public.
Rick Lane
01:08:18
That was my point four years ago and in my recent Congressional testimony, ICANN cannot solve the GDPR/Whois problem.
Owen Smigelski
01:08:25
@Cyntia- whois was never intended for “accountability”.
Amr Elsadr
01:08:49
@Rick: What GDPR problem? ;-)
Marie Pattullo
01:09:28
Is that per year?
Owen Smigelski
01:09:43
+1 Amr- I’m glad the GDPR has resulted in also protecting my personal data. The amount of spam and phishing emails/calls has gone down since my data stopped being published in whois
Marie Pattullo
01:09:49
13-106 per year?
Andrea Glandon
01:09:49
Reminder to change your chat to everyone. Thank you
Cyntia King
01:10:32
@Amr - In your opinion then, only people who actively monitor abuse should pay to keep the public safe? That's like saying only people who pay for police forces shuold receive their protection. And now we're back in the 1800s.
Michael Palage
01:11:11
Can ICANN share this secondary research
Owen Smigelski
01:11:47
@Cyntia- so when everyone had access to full registration data via whois, there was either no abuse or bad guys were always getting caught? That also means since GDPR, abuse has gone up? None of these happened or has happened.
Amr Elsadr
01:12:25
@Cyntia: Like Owen said, there was never a policy that mandated whois being made available as an accountability mechanism. Granted that some use it for that purpose. Others have used it for other purposes, including many that are not compliant with law. It really does sound like you’re proposing some kind of broad Internet tax to subsidize the costs of SSAD users. Best of luck with that one.
Cyntia King
01:12:43
@Owen - I disagree. In my reading of the notes of the scientists who originated the internet, they were vey concerned about accountability.
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:47
agencies will go to the contracted parties anyway (direct contact does not leave traces in the third party systems, which no agency likes)
Nigel Hickson
01:13:33
Thank you for answer
Sarah Wyld
01:14:25
The Phase 1 Rec 18 direct-to-CP process also has timelines for predictability
Marie Pattullo
01:14:48
None of us should forget that GDPR and similar regulations are about balance. Agree that receiving less spam and fraudulent service offers, etc. is a relief for registrants. That’s a great outcome. However, current policies have transitioned the system from one extreme to the other. We have lost sight of the balance because of the uncertainties around enforcement. That is what good policy can fix at the public and private level.
Cyntia King
01:15:13
@Owen - lol Of course ther as abuse. There was simply a easily-accessible mechanism to deal with the abuse. By, say, individuals like me.
Owen Smigelski
01:16:08
@Cyntia- I’m curious what notes you’ve read, because everything I’ve ever heard, including talking to people who helped develop the DNS, is that is was was “the directory simply listed the contact information that was requested of anyone transmitting data across the ARPANET” (see https://whois.icann.org/en/about-whois#field-section-3)
Owen Smigelski
01:17:26
@Cyntia- and if you still have a valid reason for requesting data disclosure, you can do so under the law in a way that still protects registrant rights.
Chokri Ben Romdhane
01:17:37
Thank you all
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:30
WHOIS for Internet Protocol addresses were always different from WHOIS for domains. Principles used in the number system are different till today.
Cyntia King
01:19:02
@Owen - Whois post GDPR can still be more robust than it is at present. And there are many ways of dealing with these issues thta don't require people who want to combat abuse to breathe some type of rarified air & papy through the nose. As an individual that sees abuse regularly, I think we're making it too hard for simple users to help themselves.
Alan Greenberg
01:20:06
Report said "ICANN MAY contribute to the (partial) covering of costs for maintaining the Central Gateway.:
Owen Smigelski
01:20:37
@Cyntia- I understand your concerns, however the legal and technical complexities (which also include staggering development budgets) make such solutions as you envision impossible. Contracted parties have to deal with these realities, rather than wishlists of some ICANN constituencies (which may not align with these realities)
Sarah Wyld
01:21:17
Does that mean after the first 5 years the fees would drop?
Sarah Wyld
01:21:25
^Shani ?
Cyntia King
01:22:43
@Owen - Again, you presume that registrants shuold no longer have access to any means to protect themselves. Instead, you would force them to pay a verified requestor to have any means to protcet themselves. As a Registrant myself, I don't appreciate that.
Cyntia King
01:23:48
@Marie Pattullo - Exactly!
Sarah Wyld
01:25:00
Thank you Shani
Jonathan Zuck
01:25:00
Thanks. As someone to built these systems, sometimes from scratch and sometimes as integrations, for years. These estimates seem very high to me, that's all.
Jan Jansen
01:25:06
From experience : after 5 years you will need new development
Jan Jansen
01:25:49
So don't count on pricing going down ...
Owen Smigelski
01:26:18
@Cyntia- you misunderstand me. I do not want registrants to pay for having their data be accessible. At all. Hence why there cannot be an open system under GDPR, and why we’ve arrived at the SSAD.
Amr Elsadr
01:26:48
@Owen: +1
Herb Waye
01:27:00
Informative session… professional and respectful… stay safe everyone and be kind. ombudsman@icann.org
Yuko Yokoyama (ICANN Org)
01:27:18
odp-ssad@icann.org
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:18
Thanks to all presenters and staff memebers
Nigel Hickson
01:27:23
Thank you so much for informative session