[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Bigger Picture

Fri Dec 8 19:33:28 UTC 2017

Thank you, this is very helpful

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, John Horton <john.horton at legitscript.com>
wrote:

> 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-protect
>> ion-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
>>
>
>

-- 
_________________________________
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/d26c54e8/attachment.html>