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

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Tue May 10 15:31:11 UTC 2016

Without commenting on any the points anyone has made on this thread, I want to point out that this WG and all of us as part of it are part of ICANN.  What we do in this WG will potentially determine what ICANN does regarding an RDS.  My point is that ICANN is not simply a corporation separate from us but rather a community of which we are a part.


From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 10:59 AM
To: kimpian.peter at naih.hu; 'Stephanie Perrin'; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions

I would like to follow up on Péter Kimpián’s comments.

Here is very simple aerial fly over perspective on the data issues here. I may be completely wrong, but history -starting with the European Enclosure Movement- suggests that I am probably right.

ICANN has business interests in defining what data to collect, accessible by whom and under what conditions. It also has business interests, from within its remit, in the data relationship with its contracted parties.
However, ICANN’s contracted parties reside within national jurisdictions, and the relevant data is hosted within national jurisdictions, so ICANN cannot unilaterally define what constitutes legitimate data policy within its business interests.

This means that how ICANN treats data will be increasingly constrained not just by ICANN’s remit, but by the “ring fence” of national and regional polices erected around ICANN’s remit by the data retention and use policies of the rest of the governments on the planet.

Some will brand this as the “fracturing of the Internet”. It is in fact other jurisdictions taking responsibility for Internet governance outside ICANN’s remit, but within their remit. While they may do this well or badly, it is more like “city planning” than attempts to fracture the Internet. ICANN will have to recognize that it is just another stakeholder in that process.

Just as the other stakeholder groups within ICANN are busy with engagement in other national, regional and global policy forums and processes, ICANN will either have to engage as a stakeholder advocating on its own behalf, and hopefully on behalf of the public good, or it will simply tend its business within the “ring fence” build out of its own remit and the remits of others, and leave the rest of the issues to be dealt with within the remits of others.

Sam Lanfranco
On 5/10/2016 6:23 AM, Kimpián Péter wrote:
Dear All,

Totally agree with Stephanie, I would also add that every data processing must be fair and lawful and  for every each data processing activity the data controller must have a valid legal base. Therefore as already emphasized since Marrakesh the definition of the purpose of data processing (which also means data collection) is the most important task of the WG. The WG should present – I think – a proposal which clearly defines the purpose of data processing of ICANN and made on behalf of/or following the instruction of ICANN and to clearly state whether they are lawful and to which legal base to choose for the processing (for certain purpose data controller=registrar, registries will face problems if using one or another legal base in certain part of the world or even for data coming from certain part of the world) .

If there are multiple purposes – I think – the WG should be able to demonstrate the same for every each of them.

In all high level multi- and bilateral international treaties (ex: art 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and in 109 (!) countries’ national (current number of countries having data protection legislation, being Turkey the newest one) law all over the world the processing of personal data out of the purpose of for purposes which are illegal or unlawful or even unfair is strictly forbidden.

Best regards,


dr. Péter Kimpián

International Affairs and Public Relations Department
National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information
Address: H-1125 Budapest,
Szilágyi Erzsébet fasor 22/C.
Postal address: H-1530 Budapest, Pf.: 5.
Tel: +36-1/391-1422
Fax: +36-1/3911410
Email: kimpian.peter at naih.hu<mailto:kimpian.peter at naih.hu>
Web address: www.naih.hu<http://www.naih.hu/>

    [ rest deleted]



"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured

in an unjust state" -Confucius



Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)

Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3

email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran at Yorku.ca>   Skype: slanfranco

blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com

Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160510/63b9746f/attachment.html>

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