[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Review Tool for Responses from ccTLD Registry Operators' to Questions on Privacy, Data Protection and the GDPR

[Greg Aaron]

There are some lessons to be gained.  For example RIPE has determined that it can and will publish contact information in its WHOIS under European data privacy regulations.  And RIPE defines what each contact type is to be used for.

As Andew and Michele mention, the use cases and business operations between IPs and domain names are different, and many areas about one may be irrelevant to the other.  So it would be helpful to not try a wholesale comparison, but first please identfy clearly what may be relevant for comparison and why.  Asking NRO/ASO is not going to yield practical results; they won’t do that work for us.

All best,
--Greg



From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:27 AM
To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Review Tool for Responses from ccTLD Registry Operators' to Questions on Privacy, Data Protection and the GDPR

I don't see how the names community's rds has anything at all to do with the numbers community's rds.  Some of the RIRs have already moved on and made policy changes (and embraced RDAP, which was their idea in the first place). There is no reason to make this harder than it already is, and what the numbers community does is in any case not the names community's business.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.

On Jul 26, 2017, at 10:31, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi dick

I personally feel we need to get some feedback from nro/aso because whilst we are visiting the fields some of the same are used on the iana with the rir. Since you are from ripe you would know how much info is collected and discussed displayed and how much of the are inaccurate and how much of these are also affecting the work we are doing on the group. I think we need to investigate this line as well to avoid duplication process.

It's food for thought but I think it's worth looking at. Perhaps between those who are part of rir we could look at what we do and bring our bits here as a review. Else I would push it to nro/aso.

I personally feel when we are looking at the rdp a revamped Whois the RIRs are also concerned.

That's my two cents but I feel we can make a better deal in one go than having too many committees.

Kris

On 26 Jul 2017, at 17:01, Richard Leaning <rleaning at ripe.net<mailto:rleaning at ripe.net>> wrote:
Hi Kris,

Am part of this working group and also work for an RIR. If the WG feel the need to explore this more then am helping to help.

Cheers

Dick

Richard Leaning
External Relations
RIPE NCC

On 25 Jul 2017, at 05:38, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Amr

Perhaps we can drop same questions to the nro or aso. The Whois is also revealing. I know it may be outside a bit of scope but if you do a Whois not for domain but company name or individual names you could mine that for ip and emails.

I would believe some of these questions pertain to them also. Just a suggestion.

Kris

On 25 Jul 2017, at 01:48, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>> wrote:
Hi again, with apologies. This time, with the file attached.

Thanks again.

Amr

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>
Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:12 PM
To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Review Tool for Responses from ccTLD Registry Operators' to Questions on Privacy, Data Protection and the GDPR

Dear Working Group Members,

Attached is a preliminary compilation of the responses received to-date from ccTLD registry operators, fashioned after public comment review tools used by GNSO WGs. You will also find the file posted on the WG wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/rVjwAw

So far, we have only received responses from 3 ccTLDs:


  *   .ME Registry
  *   IE Domain Registry (IEDR)
  *   Canadian Internet Registration Authority

The WG Leadership Team and staff are working together to follow-up with ccTLDs who have been contacted, but have not yet responded. The WG will be notified as additional responses are received.

Thanks.

Amr
<Review Tool – Next Generation RDS PDP Working Group questions to ccTLDs.docx>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170727/95b92e16/attachment-0001.html>