[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Bigger Picture

[allison nixon]

Chuck, a few questions:

This letter was sent from the EU data protection authorities to ICANN just
yesterday:
https://www.internetnews.me/2017/12/07/european-data-protection-authorities-send-clear-message-icann/

It's clear that ICANN's stance on the GDPR/WHOIS issue has so far been to
ignore it, despite mounting criticism and concern from all involved parties.

I also want to highlight in particular that the EU data protection
authorities' letter appears to be completely unaware of the legitimate
needs served by non-law enforcement 3rd parties that are impacted by the
use of the registered domain. For that matter, there is no language at all
that directly addresses the rights of outsiders who are not part of the
commercial transaction yet are impacted by a domain via spam, hacking, etc.

1. Why is ICANN continuing to be inactive on this issue?
2. Why has ICANN failed to highlight the legitimate purposes that unlimited
publication of WHOIS data serves?
3. Why has ICANN failed to protest the fact that the EU authorities are on
the verge of issuing a blanket ruling, backed by harsh penalties and fines,
that will degrade the reliability, safety, and usability of the DNS?
4. Where are the actual large registrars in this debate? Most of the
registrars in this working group are small outfits in terms of market
share. What does Godaddy, eNom, Tucows, et all think about this or plan to
do about it? Do they plan to make any statements?




On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:

> With this message I am going to start a new thread.  To set the stage let
> me say that I have read every message on our WG list over the last 24 hours
> other than any that may have been sent while I am writing this. In doing
> that I have concluded that we need to step back and adjust our focus on the
> bigger picture.
>
> First let me say that we are not dealing with a choice of Whois as we know
> it today versus no Whois at all, so let’s discard that dichotomous choice.
> Second, we have sufficient evidence to say that there are regulations in
> some jurisdictions that forbid the public display of personal information
> belonging to natural persons the way it happens with currently implemented
> Whois policy and contractual requirements.  Third, all of us as law-abiding
> citizens, whether individuals or organizations, must obey applicable laws.
> Fourth, there are many uses of RDS data that provide essential benefits to
> the Internet community so we as a WG need to figure out ways to obey laws
> and still achieve the benefits of RDS data access.
>
> I think it is critical that we recognize that the laws that are mandating
> change to Whois policy and contractual requirements only impact a subset of
> any RDS system that is developed.  We are not talking about all RDS users
> in all geographical jurisdictions nor are we talking about all RDS data
> elements.  In the case of the GDPR we are talking about personal
> information about natural persons who reside in Europe.  I acknowledge that
> other jurisdictions have similar legal restrictions, but I think that the
> GDRP provides a good starting point.  That means that the problem we must
> solve primarily involves a subset of all RDS users and global jurisdictions.
>
> Fortunately, we now have a protocol that allows us to customize any
> modification to the existing Whois system or development of a new RDS to
> accommodate the varying legal requirements by jurisdiction.  That will not
> be a trivial exercise, but it is doable.
>
> With all that said, let’s remember that we have a large subset of RDS data
> and RDS users that are not impacted by the various data privacy and data
> protection regulations around the world.  That doesn’t make our job any
> easier in dealing with the data elements and users who are impacted by such
> regulations but let’s at least recognize that the problems we must solve do
> not involve the whole system.  I believe we still have the possibility of
> recommending fairly open access for large numbers of users and data
> elements; I am not saying whether we should do that or not, but I strongly
> believe that it will help us to realize that we are not confronting an all
> or nothing situation.
>
> Finally, let me finish by saying that none of what I said makes our job
> easy.  It will be hard.  But I ask every WG member to commit to
> constructive collaboration with one other to achieve what no other Whois
> group has ever done.  Let’s disagree respectfully, avoid personal
> criticism, listen carefully to one another and explore creative ways to
> find solutions to the challenges in front of us.
>
> Thanks for being a part of this WG.  Thanks for your patience and
> diligence in sticking with us.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>



-- 
_________________________________
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171208/ba16b33d/attachment.html>