[gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Purpose Sub Team question templates for discussion

Tue Apr 26 12:44:21 UTC 2016

Hi Susan and All,
On Saturday, I recommended that we include the European Commission’s 
webpages on “Obligations of Data Controllers” and “Definition of Data 
Controllers."  These provide clear, approachable definitions and 
guidance as to who seeking to understand the obligations of those 
collecting data and those setting the policy for it.  That's key for the 
WG.

We also need the law that sets out the purpose requirements - with the 
EU Data Protection Directive and the Council of Europe Treaty 108 as the 
key laws for this purpose... (forgive the pun!)

Best,
Kathy

On 4/26/2016 12:19 AM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
>
> Hello Purpose Sub Team,
>
>
> On tomorrow’s call we will have 45 minutes to discuss the questions 
> listed below.  Staff has compiled our comments from emails and the 
> last phone call discussion.  We need to formulate responses to each of 
> the questions below.
>
> Please review and think about all the summaries of the documents that 
> have been reviewed for “purpose”.
>
> (i)DidthisinputinventoryproduceanyinsightstoinformtheWG’sworkplan?
>
> Draft response:
>
> (ii)WhichinputsarelikelytobethemostrelevantduringWGdeliberationsandwhy[2] 
> <#_ftn2>?
>
> Draft response (based on input received during 20/4 meeting and 
> sub-team mailing list):
>
> ·EWG Recommendations (see relevant sections), because this 
> comprehensive document has relevant sections that identify, analyze 
> and define in a rigorous way the various categories of users and their 
> purpose for accessing registration data. The analysis of the EWG is 
> well structured and also carefully summarized in tables that are both 
> detailed and, at the same time, precise and easy to read. In brief, 
> the EWG recommendations provide a solid base for framing the questions 
> that we are trying to address in our working group. The document is an 
> excellent source of information that would help us facilitate our 
> subsequent deliberations.
>
> ·2012 WHOIS Policy Review Team Report, because this report is another 
> comprehensive document similar to the EWG recommendations. It contains 
> a number relevant parts that give hints to answering the question of 
> what is the over-arching purpose of collecting, maintaining, and 
> providing access to gTLD registration data. The importance of this 
> question makes the WHOIS report relevant to this PDP.
>
> ·SAC055, because SAC055 provides further insight into the WHOIS Policy 
> Review Team Final Report (2012). In particular, SAC055 emphasizes the 
> need of a single consensus policy, explains why the attempts to reach 
> consensus failed repeatedly and suggests recommendations to the ICANN 
> Board of Directors to help overcome the challenges that occurred in 
> the past.
>
> ·2007 GAC Communiqué regarding WHOIS, because the GAC principles 
> regarding gTLD WHOIS services identify a number of important areas 
> where WHOIS data is used such as supporting Internet's security and 
> stability, determining availability of domain names, enforcing 
> national and international laws, combating against abusive uses of 
> ICTs, etc. All these recommendations are solid and also related to 
> this PDP so they may help facilitate our work.
>
> ·2013 RAA - includes specific uses by registrars, because [to be 
> completed]
>
> ·Article 29 WP opinion (03/2003) on purpose limitation, because [to be 
> completed]
>
> ·Article 29 WP on ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with 
> Privacy Law (2007), because this letter stresses the importance of 
> defining the purpose of registration data so that its processing and 
> use complies with EU data and protection legislation. Ensuring such 
> legal compliance should be always kept in mind when defining the 
> purpose in our PDP so that registrars operating under EU legislation 
> do not face legal issues when trying to meet the registrar 
> accreditation agreements.
>
> ·Article 29 WP on legitimate interests of data controller (2014), 
> because [to be completed]
>
> ·SAC054, because this document is particularly relevant as it 
> identifies not only the data elements collected, but the purpose for 
> which they are collected, and identify whether the collection is 
> optional or mandatory.
>
> (iii)Whichinputs,ifany,generatedthemostdiscussion withinthesmallteam?
>
> Draft response:
>
> (iv)Whichinputsmaybeobsoleteorsuper-cededbysubsequentwork?
>
> Draft response:
>
> (v)Whatinputgaps,ifany,mayneedtobeaddressedlater?
>
> Draft response:
>
> -The Whois Review Team was expressly barred from looking at the 
> purpose of the Whois system. It was allowed to look only at ICANN's 
> "existing policy relating to WHOIS" per the Affirmation of Commitments 
> signed between US Department of Commerce and ICANN in 2009.
>
> -Even within that scope, the Whois Review Team Final Report expressly 
> recommended protection of privacy for commercial companies, 
> noncommercial organizations and individuals (finding that each shared 
> with us legal and legitimate reasons for privacy including 
> as-yet-unannounced mergers, new movie names, unpopular religious, 
> ethnic and policy views, etc).
>
> -The Whois Review Team Final Report advised ICANN to work towards a 
> standard of "contactability" - reaching the registrant by some means 
> rather than all means - which we wrote as: "ICANN should take 
> appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that 
> fall into the accuracy groups Substantial Failure and Full Failure (as 
> defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10..." p. 87.
>
> [MK1] <#_msocom_1>
>
> (vi)OtherkeytakeawaysfromthisinputinventorytheteamwishestosharewiththeWG
>
> Draft response:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [1] <#_ftnref1>Please see ‘*Plan****to****consolidate****summaries 
> and**complete &present teamoutputs* 
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58734473/RDS-InputTeams-Plan-12April-updated.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1460488904000&api=v2>*’ 
> *for further details on the overall agreed approach for sub-teams.
>
> [2] <#_ftnref2>Note, this does not mean that other inputs are not 
> considered – this is just intended to facilitate the WG’s 
> prioritization of documents to consider first in relation to the 
> finalization of the work plan and subsequent deliberations.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [MK1] <#_msoanchor_1>As suggested by Kathy.
>
>
> Looking forward to the discussion tomorrow.
> Susan Kawaguchi
> Domain Name Manager
> Facebook Legal Dept.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose/attachments/20160426/b22757b0/attachment-0001.html>