[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue May 10 02:16:12 UTC 2016


Indeed, I agree whole heartedly.  Registrars may collect what they need 
to do business, and are governed by relevant data protection law. 
However, what they collect, use, disclose, escrow, and retain as 
instructed by ICANN is clearly within our remit, and unless I am 
mistaken there is a certain crossover in the matter of data 
retention....if the registrars over collect metadata, they are 
instructed to retain it in the RAA so this may be an instance where we 
ought to be looking over their shoulders. The key question, from a data 
protection perspective is do they have a legitimate interest, as data 
controller, in collecting, using and disclosing it.  The same applies to 
ICANN as data controller:  do they have a legitimate interest in 
demanding through contract, as the data controller for the purposes of 
mandating data collection, use and disclosure as a condition of 
accreditation, the data listed in the RAA?  And it is ICANN which 
concerns us.

Stephanie


On 2016-05-09 20:49, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> Exactly!   And we have a listing of the elements right there in the RAA.
>
> This distinction has been made again and again in every fora I have 
> attended on registration data. And all arguments/traige/decisions 
> pertaining purposefulness, access and privacy pertain ONLY to those 
> elements.
>
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
> =============================
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Alan Greenberg 
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
>
>     One small (but I think important) issue that has been bothering me
>     since we started this WG.
>
>     When we talk about what data is being collected by registrars or
>     registries, I think we need to be very careful in our wording.
>     What we are interested in is what data is being collected (or
>     should be collected in the future) MANDATED by ICANN agreements.
>     What they collect on their own volition is not on our agenda
>     (whether it is credit card information, your birth date so they
>     can send you a gratuitous Happy Birthday wish, or your national
>     identity number).
>
>     Alan
>
>
>     At 09/05/2016 12:12 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
>         Hi Chuck, Michele, Susan, David, and Lisa,
>         I think Holly has hit the nail on the head. At the outset, and
>         before moving forward to any additional questions, we should
>         evaluate:
>         1) what data is collected?
>         2) why is this data collected?
>         3) is this data the subject of data protection laws?
>
>         This is exactly the foundation and background that the
>         subgroups have prepared for us - the Data Elements, Privacy
>         law and Purpose subgroups. We now have the materials to enter
>         into this analysis as a full WG in a constructive, informed
>         and systematic way.
>
>         Marika recently shared these questions in the link she sent
>         around summarizing our previous comments/ suggestions. Members
>         from a range of SOs and ACs raised the need for the WG to
>         reorder the questions to allow consideration of data elements,
>         privacy frameworks and "purpose" upfront and early on. As you
>         may remember, Scott Hollenbeck kicked off the discussion and
>         many others joined in.
>         https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730879/RDS-PDP-Phase1-ProposedWorkPlanChanges-16March2016.pdf.
>         When we checked with members of Charter Team in Marrakech,
>         they blessed the idea that we as a WG should choose our own
>         order for the questions - as long as we cover them all, they
>         would be happy.
>
>         Accordingly, why would we launch into secondary purposes
>         first? Rephrased, why would we consider all of the "possible
>         requirements" of a directory service when we as a WG have not
>         yet undertaken the basic analysis of what data is collected,
>         for what primary purpose, and under what privacy laws and
>         frameworks we should be analyzing the data?  This seems
>         totally like putting the cart before the horse.
>
>         Best,
>         Kathy
>
>
>         On 5/7/2016 4:22 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>
>             Thanks Lisa
>
>             What the data group has  been exploring is just what data
>             is actually collected by registries/registrars.
>
>             I realise that the original Charter questions were framed
>             around gTLD registration data - the 'Whois' data that must
>             be made public under the 2013 RAA. But what the data group
>             has identified is that there is more data in question than
>             just the 'Whois' data. Yet these questions are framed
>             around the gTLD data.
>
>             Somewhere, there should be a question - or something -
>             that suggests that the Charter questions should go further
>             to at least consider what data is collected and why, and
>             whether it should be the subject of data protections.
>
>             Thanks
>
>             Holly
>
>
>             On 8 May 2016, at 2:57 am, Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com
>             <mailto:lisa at corecom.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Dear all,
>
>                 A reminder that PDP WG feedback if any on the attached
>                 early outreach message is due no later than tomorrow -
>                 Sunday 8 May 23.59 UTC.
>
>                 Best, Lisa
>
>                 At 12:07 PM 5/3/2016, Lisa Phifer wrote:
>
>                     Dear all,
>
>                     As agreed during today's WG call, attached please
>                     find a slightly revised draft input template to
>                     solicit early input from ICANN SOs/ACs and GNSO
>                     SG/Cs. This is the template discussed in today's
>                     WG call.
>
>                     Remember, there will be many opportunities for
>                     community input throughout this PDP. The attached
>                     input template is to be used to initiate the early
>                     outreach required of every PDP to inform the WG at
>                     the start of its work. The template is a tool used
>                     successfully by other PDP WG's to solicit
>                     structured input, along with any additional input
>                     each group wishes to provide.
>
>                     WG member feedback on this draft input template is
>                     welcome: please send any feedback to the entire WG
>                     list <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>                     <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> no later than
>                     Sunday 8 May 23.59 UTC.
>
>                     Our goal is to send the final version of this
>                     template to initiate early outreach next week.
>
>                     Best, Lisa
>
>
>                     _______________________________________________
>                     gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>                     gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>                     <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>                     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>                 <RDS PDP - SO AC SG C Input Template - 2 May 2016
>                 rev.pdf>_______________________________________________
>                 gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>                 gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>                 <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>             gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>             https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160509/e8d5d721/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list