<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Ashley I strongly support your edits I think that they are clear and specific and I also support keeping 4.4.9 under the purposes section (4.4) The current
draft surly speaks to some of ICANN's purposes which is the security and stability of the DNS.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hadia<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 06, 2018 5:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Heineman, Ashley; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] 4.4.9 (and 4.4.2)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Ashley, I strongly support your edits and explicitly support keeping a reference to these issues in 4.4. GDPR Article 6.1(f) explicitly allows reference to the needs of third parties and this certainly qualifies.
<br>
<br>
To the extent necessary, I believe that we need to put language somewhere that explains why this is driven by our Bylaw requirement to provide a stable and resilient DNS which I believe has to map to a trusted DNS.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 05/09/2018 04:46 PM, Heineman, Ashley wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all. Please find below proposed edits to 4.4.9, which should be considered initial input as further discussion is welcomed. Also included below are some recommended edits to 4.4.2, which I realize is being reviewed/modified by someone
else. <br>
<br>
Regarding 4.4.9, the proposed text is:<br>
<br>
<i>Enabling the prevention and detection of cybercrime and illegal DNS abuse to promote the resilience, security, stability and/or reliability of the DNS and the Internet. Enabling the prevention of unlawful conduct to meet the legitimate needs of law enforcement
and public authorities promoting consumer trust in the DNS and the Internet and safeguarding registrant data.
<br>
</i> <br>
After a lot of deliberation and thought, we decided that this text should remain under section 4.4 (not be moved) as this section is a list of ICANN?s and the Contracted Parties? legitimate purposes for processing data and accordingly we want a reference to
this purpose as we believe it influences/touches upon at least two stages of their processing (collection and disclosure).<br>
<br>
That being said, let it be clear that we are <i>not seeking the collection of additional WHOIS data elements</i>. However, we do want to ensure that the collection of existing WHOIS data fields continue to be maintained.<br>
<br>
Further, it is our view that the collection and disclosure of information, as it aligns with efforts to combat cybercrime and other illegal DNS abuse, is fully consistent with ICANN bylaws and therefore fits within ICANN?s purposes. (see specific bylaw references
below).<br>
<br>
Lastly, our initial text reflects a concerted effort not to conflate ICANN?s purposes with that of LEA/government authorities. It is our view that the interests and lawful basis of third parties (such as LEA/government authorities) should be articulated elsewhere
as appropriate. <br>
<br>
ICANN Bylaws (excerpts)<br>
Section 1.2. COMMITMENTS AND CORE VALUES<br>
In performing its Mission, ICANN will act in a manner that complies with and reflects ICANN?s Commitments and respects ICANN?s Core Values, each as described below.<br>
<br>
(a) COMMITMENTS<br>
***<br>
(i) Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet.<br>
<br>
Section 4.6. SPECIFIC REVIEWS<br>
***<br>
(e) Registration Directory Service Review<br>
<br>
(ii) The Board shall cause a periodic review to assess the effectiveness of the then current gTLD registry directory service and whether its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement,<br>
promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data. <br>
<br>
<br>
Regarding 4.4.2, we offer the following edits for consideration. We believe this provides the necessary specificity required under GDPR:<br>
<br>
<i>Providing collection and disclosure of accurate, reliable, and uniform Registration Data based on lawful basis, consistent with GDPR, to ensure resilience, security, and/or stability of the DNS. In the case of legitimate interest as a basis, collection
and disclosure must not outweigh the fundamental rights of relevant data subjects.<br>
</i> <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list<br>
Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>