[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Bigger Picture
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Fri Dec 8 20:16:38 UTC 2017
Good questions Allison, let me answer them from my perspective in no
logical order :)
4 I cannot comment on the Enom/Tucows solution, but the contracted
parties are going above and beyond to get compliant here. And believe
me, we are not doing this to tick people off, let alone do this for fun.
We are trying to SURVIVE.
I can comment on the fact that contracted parties have been very engaged
to get to a solution here with ICANN at an early stage, but let me come
back to that while I address 1 and 2.
1 & 2
People are under the impression that ICANN has failed. But ICANN is US,
US being the ICANN COMMUNITY. I doubt to have to explain that the
community has been divided since forever over this. This RDS WG is the
prime example here on how divided this community is.
ICANN ORG cannot move on without community support. So if we want
solutions here, we need to work together here or you get ugly solutions
like privacy services being used to stay compliant.
3 This assumes ICANN had a mandate from the community to object, but the
community decided to ignore while it should have engaged.
As we can read from the WP29 letter, they reached out since 2003 and
never gotten a response back from this community. I am amazed they still
hold the door open for this community who treated the EU DPA's like
DIRT. Well not all of the community of course... some people within this
community been warning us for years.
Thanks,
Theo
On 8-12-2017 20:33, allison nixon wrote:
> Thank you, this is very helpful
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, John Horton
> <john.horton at legitscript.com <mailto: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
>
>
> *FollowLegitScript*: 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
> <mailto: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/
> <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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <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 <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <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/20171208/1851336c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list