[Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items from EPDP Team Phase 2 Meeting #11 - 1 August 2019 - ALAC Online buyers Use Case

Thu Aug 29 09:20:07 UTC 2019

Even allowing the request may be too much as that request will have to 
be reviewed and handled by someone, taking away resources from the 
request that have a more realistic chance for a positive response and a 
concrete need for the data, such as local LEAs and holders of rights 
being actively infringed upon by the domain holder.

If you have to look at RDAP/WHOIS to find out whom you are doing 
business with, you probably should not buy there in the first place.

That info belongs with the content.

Volker

Am 28.08.2019 um 20:25 schrieb King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team:
>
> Hey Amr and all,
>
> I can’t speak authoritatively for ALAC’s intent, but I read this use 
> case as allowing internet users to /request/ (not have an entitlement 
> to receive) information about a website they might do business with, a 
> link they might click, etc.
>
> I think we’re merely talking about allowing an internet user to ask 
> the question, without presupposing any access outcome. Does that 
> change your perspective?
>
> I’m sympathetic to concerns raised about the bounds of ICANN’s remit, 
> and I might find those concerns more persuasive if we were talking 
> about guaranteed access in this case.
>
> *Brian J. King *
> Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs
>
> T +1 443 761 3726_
> markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>_
>
> *MarkMonitor
> *Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf 
> Of *Amr Elsadr
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2019 7:28 AM
> *To:* Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg>
> *Cc:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items from EPDP Team 
> Phase 2 Meeting #11 - 1 August 2019 - ALAC Online buyers Use Case
>
> Hi,
>
> The issue many of us have with this use case isn’t that Internet users 
> should not be entitled to know who they elect to do business with over 
> the web, so I don’t believe it is necessary to keep pushing that 
> point. The issue is that in situations where entities conducting 
> commerce over the Web do not have their contact information readily 
> published on their websites, ICANN/gTLD policy is an inappropriate 
> substitute to resolve this, due to ICANN’s narrow mission.
>
> Speaking for myself, even if it were legal for ICANN to adopt policies 
> that are beyond the scope of its mission (which I don’t think is the 
> case here), it is undesirable for it to do so. Not having a clearly 
> drawn line in the sand on what ICANN can regulate online via 
> contractual compliance with Registries and Registrars, including 
> selling and purchasing goods and services, is a prospect that I find 
> to be very unappealing. It creates a great deal of uncertainty for 
> both Contracted Parties providing domain name registration services, 
> as well as registrants who utilize these services.
>
> My interpretation of consumer protection from an ICANN perspective is 
> that registrants are THE consumers of services in the ICANN context. 
> In that context, proposing policy recommendations beyond the scope of 
> ICANN’s mission is bad, not good, for consumer protection.  …, and 
> like I said…, I don’t believe it to be complaint with data protection 
> regulation, such as the GDPR, anyway.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>     On Aug 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi
>     <Hadia at tra.gov.eg <mailto:Hadia at tra.gov.eg>> wrote:
>
>     Hello All,
>
>     The ALAC online buyers online case is a real life scenario for why
>     there needs to be a distinction between natural and legal persons.
>     I shall not get into this debate. However, I note that consumers
>     identity and even location is now available to buyers through many
>     online applications, GDPR protects personal information of natural
>     persons and not legal persons. It is only fair to Internet end
>     users to allow them to have the contact information of the online
>     businesses. This is particularly important in case Internet end
>     users are dealing with small businesses online. You can find
>     online businesses  contact details now through some existing
>     applications. What and who are we trying to protect by not
>     allowing this use case. Commercial websites should be encouraged
>     to indicate who they are and publish their information. The
>     architecture of the web inherently does not require real identity,
>     but having a complete anonymous system is always an invitation to
>     problems, making people feel less accountable and diminishing the
>     trust in the network. A survey conducted by Bright Local showed
>     that 60%  of customers prefer to call small businesses on the
>     phone. The survey also showed that consumers now look beyond
>     websites, RDS is only one tool of many however, prohibiting it to
>     exist works against the norm. I also note that getting clarity in
>     relation to the contracted parties liability in this regard is
>     very important and if implemented information should only be
>     provided if the case is absolutely clear.
>
>     I attach the updated user case, which is also available through
>     the google doc
>
>     Best
>
>     Hadia el-Miniawi
>
>     *From:*Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org]*On
>     Behalf Of*Mueller, Milton L
>     *Sent:*Monday, August 19, 2019 5:27 PM
>     *To:*Tara Whalen;gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
>     *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items from EPDP
>     Team Phase 2 Meeting #11 - 1 August 2019 - ALAC Online buyers Use Case
>
>     Tara:
>
>     Responses inline below:
>
>      1. The ICANN Board resolved in May to have the ePDP “determine
>         and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2."
>         https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-05-15-en#1.b
>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D05-2D15-2Den-231.b&d=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=B8MS1O2ZkevjBW6hFhUe1Tfw1xhaFLotkSAAZ3g3DYQ&s=IAoMV6Yy5PfTOTRJ7D6oVAm1m5bFZMOIZHmnJjr4Gnk&e=>
>         Because the issue is not decided.
>
>     Not quite correct. The Board noted that EPDP’s own Recommendation
>     said that we would resolve the issue in Phase 2. The board did not
>     tell us to do so. The resolution also notes the “Potential
>     liability of a registered name holder's incorrect
>     self-identification of a natural or legal person, which ultimately
>     results in public display of personal data.” This concern was one
>     of several that motivated our reluctance to attempt differentiation.
>
>      2. The EWG recommended a differentiation solution -- that
>         registrants be required to identify as a Registrant Type, with
>         Legal Person and Natural Person among the options.  It also
>         required that a mandatory Business PBC be published for
>         “Registrants that self-identify as Legal Persons engaged in
>         commercial activity" (pages 42-44 of final report).
>
>     This option _/was/_ discussed and discarded in Phase 1. It was
>     noted that to the vast majority of ordinary people the distinction
>     between legal and natural has no meaning, and that there would be
>     liability consequences if there were incorrect identification (see
>     above). And besides, the recommendation of the EWG was made prior
>     to GDPR and has no bearing on EPDP.
>
>      3. ICANN’s Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy
>         Law was reviewed by the GNSO and revised in mid-2017.  A goal
>         of the Procedure was “to resolve the problem in a manner that
>         preserves the ability of the registrar/registry to comply with
>         its [current] contractual WHOIS obligations to the greatest
>         extent possible”.  So -- to publish as much data as possible
>         as allowed by law.
>
>     Now you are way off base. Contractual Whois obligations in 2017
>     were not compliant with GDPR. The Conflicts with Privacy Law
>     procedure is completely irrelevant to our proceedings.
>
>      4. Under that Procedure, about the only precedent was the .TEL
>         case, which addressed concerns raised by UK privacy law. In
>         that case, the WHOIS service was made to differentiate between
>         natural and legal persons.  Some public WHOIS data was limited
>         for natural persons who had elected to withhold their personal
>         information from disclosure by the WHOIS service, records for
>         Legal Persons had to return full and complete WHOIS data
>         (including applicable personal data), and Legal Persons were
>         not permitted to opt out of disclosing such information. The
>         GDPR is definitely a different law and may yield a different
>         policy.  But the .TEL case did show that it’s possible to tell
>         the difference between a natural person’s data and a legal
>         person’s data, and to control where that data appears.
>
>     Same comment as above.
>
>     <Consumer_Protection_Use_Case_ALAC - Online buyers_Update_2.docx>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- 
Volker A. Greimann
General Counsel and Policy Manager
*KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*

T: +49 6894 9396901
M: +49 6894 9396851
F: +49 6894 9396851
W: www.key-systems.net

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of 
Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in 
England and Wales with company number 8576358.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190829/6c7badc2/attachment-0001.html>