[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Bigger Picture

[John Horton]

While I obviously can't answer most of that, and while I obviously don't
speak for Tucows/eNom, this PDF
<https://www.enom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/whois_changes_overview_enom.pdf>
might help answer a bit on your fourth question. This blog
<https://www.enom.com/blog/will-gdpr-impact-whois/> covers that as well.

John Horton
President and CEO, LegitScript


*Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>  |  Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript>  |  Twitter
<https://twitter.com/legitscript>  |  *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com/>*
  |  Newsletter <http://go.legitscript.com/Subscription-Management.html>




On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:04 AM, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171208/0cc26af4/attachment-0001.html>