[Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1

Wed Feb 6 13:17:53 UTC 2019

Hello,

I agree with Hadia's reasoning for the edits but would actually suggest
that it ends at org instead. So it reads as follows:
"*The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether
additional purposes should be considered to facilitate ICANN’s Office of
the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to carry out its mission (see
https://www.icann.org/octo <https://www.icann.org/octo>). This
consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in
the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org"*

Regards

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 2:04 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <
Hadia at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thank you Marika, apologies for editing an old version. Please find below
> my edits in orange
>
>
>
> *The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether
> additional purposes should be considered to facilitate ICANN’s Office of
> the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to carry out its mission (see
> https://www.icann.org/octo <https://www.icann.org/octo>). This
> consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in
> the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and **the relevance of
> research to ICANN's mission.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Again my edits are because I think that we should avoid referring to data
> or modes of operation the whole idea is yet to be explored.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hadia
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:44 PM
> *To:* Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Margie Milam;
> gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional
> Topics- Part 1
>
>
>
> Hadia, all,
>
>
>
> Please note that per yesterday’s agreement, the recommendation has been
> updated as follows:
>
>
>
> *The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether
> additional purposes should be considered to facilitate ICANN’s Office of
> the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to carry out its mission (see
> https://www.icann.org/octo <https://www.icann.org/octo>). This
> consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in
> the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the expression for the
> need of such pseudonymized data by ICANN. *
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg>
> *Date: *Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 06:38
> *To: *Margie Milam <margiemilam at fb.com>, "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <
> gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional
> Topics- Part 1
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> Thank you Margie for your edits I would suggest a minor edit to the
> research purpose to read (my edits are in orange)
>
>
>
> "The EPDP Team commits to  considering in Phase 2 of its work whether
> additional purposes should be considered to facilitate research ADD: [
> and threat response] carried out by ICANN’s Office of the Chief
> Technology Officer (OCTO). This consideration should be informed by legal
> guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to
> ICANN Org and the need for the research purpose by ICANN org in
> accordance with the mission of ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology
> Officer."
>
>
>
> The reason for my edits is that we don't know yet the kind of data that
> would be required nor the means of implementation the whole purpose/idea is
> yet to be explored.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hadia
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Margie Milam
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 05, 2019 4:03 AM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics-
> Part 1
>
>
>
> Hi-
>
> Per Marika’s request, here are some language clarifications for your
> consideration, as well as additional topic submitted on behalf of the BC,
>  and developed in collaboration with the IPC.  New Text is in yellow
> highlight.
> * _________*
>
>
>
> *Rec 1*
>
> *Purpose 1(b):*   Subject to the Registry and Registry Terms Conditions
> and Policies, and ICANN Consensus Policies – please ADD: { and relevant
> registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements]
>
>
>
> *Purpose 2:*  Footnote 6 needs to be moved to be linked to Purpose 2, not
> Rec 2.
>
>
>
> *Research purpose:*  The EPDP Team commits to  considering in Phase 2 of
> its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate
> research ADD: [ and threat response] carried out by ICANN’s Office of the
> Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). This consideration should be informed by
> legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply
> to ICANN Org and the expression 426for the need of such data by  ICANN
>
>
>
> *Footnote 7/8*  should not be a footnote but moved up to the body of the
> report.  These footnotes are substantive recommendations and commitments
> that should not be buried in a footnote.
>
>
>
> *Rec 7:*   Replace “ICANN Compliance”with ”ICANN Organization” to be
> consistent with other recommendations.
>
> Delete  the quote in  Footnote 12 on page 24, since this is inconsistent
> with Purpose 5.
>
>
>
> *Additional Topics:*
>
>
>
> *INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE REGISTRANT:*
>
> Page 16- where there is the quote from the EDPB:
>
>  *It should therefore be made clear, as part of the registration process,
> that the registrant is free to (1) designate the same person as the
> registrant (or its representative) as the administrative or technical
> contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not directly
> identify the administrative or technical contact person concerned
> (e.g. admin at company.com <admin at company.com>). For the avoidance of doubt,
> the EDPB recommends explicitly clarifying this within future updates of the
> Temporary Specification*”.
>
>
>
> We believe it is important to follow the EDPB’s advice and propose
> including a recommendation regarding informed consent, in light of the
> legal advice received, as follows:
>
>
>
> The EPDP recommends that as part of the registration process, the
> Registrar shall offer the registered name holder the option to (1)
> designate the same person as the registrant or its representative as the
> technical contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not
> directly identify the technical contact person, but instead uses a generic
> or role-based email  (e.g.admin at company.com).
>
>
>
> *OPTIONAL TECH CONTACT DISCUSSION:*  We do not support making the Tech
> Contact optional  at the registrar level or registry level and believe that
> more discussion is needed.  For example, we have not discussed what happens
> to existing Tech contacts in the legacy registrations.  Shouldn’t there be
> a similar transitional process to what has been developed for the
> ORGANIZATION field?   In any event, this obligation must be requieeed for
> the registries since they should receive the tech contact data for those
> registrants who have provided consent.
>
>
>
> *RECOMMENTATION  REGARDING CONSENT* Page 19 – Line 549  please delete
>  “as soon as commercially reasonable”.  Instead, this recommendation should
> track the dates for implementation under the transition plan that James and
> the registrars proposed in Toronto.
>
>
>
> *Rec 4:* THICK WHOIS: we do not support the deletion of THICK WHOIS as a
> consensus policy, and believe that this goes beyond the scope of this EPDP.
>
>
>
> *Rec 8:*  GLOBAL REDACTION vs. OPTIONAL AT THE REGISTRAR---  We do not
> agree with global application of the REDACTION, and believe  that this
> recommendation goes well beyond the Temp Spec, which at a minimum allows
> the registrars/registries to CHOOSE a different application, especially
> because of differing legal regimes.  Our policy needs to be flexible enough
> to account for laws beyond GDRP, such as the possible US legislation
> related to WHOIS.  Similarly, we do not believe that the redaction should
> apply to legal persons.  We recall James suggesting that we could consider
> an approach similar to the approach taken for the ORGANIZATION Field, and
> thus we would like to further explore it in Phase 2.
>
>
>
> *Footnote 15* is a recommendation that should be moved into the body of
> the Final Report & not be buried in a footnote.   Also- it needs to exclude
> registrations with privacy/proxy services and those for which the
> registrant has provided consent.
>
>
>
> *PAGE 27*:  REDACTION OF CITY– we don’t agree with the redaction of CITY
> and are awaiting legal advice from Ruth on the issue. As a result, it is
> premature to make a recommendation that it be redacted now.  This should be
> a Phase 2 discussion
>
>
>
> *REC 9:*   Instead of a “via a process that can be determined by each
> registrar”   we should have concrete steps that can be enforced by ICANN.
> Could the registrars identify some reasonable steps for this process?
>
>
>
> ADD:  After the implementation phase-in period, the ORG FIELD will no
> longer be REDACTED by either the registry or registrar.
>
>
>
> We are still working through the remainder of the Final Report, and will
> follow up this email with additional comments.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190206/3587812f/attachment-0001.html>