[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners

[Kris Seeburn]

Sam +1

We need to come to terms soon else it is going to be another 20 years before we get down to anything.

I would be honest here not to be grouchy ... we need a middle ground people that would bring some consensus 

Sorry but the some points are valid a Sam has said but we need to come to terms and get things done. This is not a perfect world but people all of us are professionals and we need to have a proper way forward. The more I attend and read emails and comments it looks like the WGs will never do anything proper and in good interest.

Kris

> On 28 Sep 2017, at 18:56, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:
> 
> We are in a protracted dialogue (multilogue) where all sides are making good points but not always really addressing quite the same issue. Is there a way to impart a bit of order here so that evidence and analysis drive us toward enough clarity on specific issues that we can fabricate consensus, or identify that consensus is impossible?
> 
> Looking at the recent discussion it would appear that two issues have been conflated. The one is central to this rds-pdp-wg, and that is what should be in the minimum public data set and how to reconcile that process (as well as the nature of the data) to be consistent with emerging GDPR regimes. The other is with regard to privacy/proxy services. That can be, and should be, treated as a separate issue, probably outside the remit of this working group.
> 
> In my opinion we should be absolutely clear as to what we are trying to do. We are trying to identify that core of public personal data that should be in the open-access (no gated restrictions) record of information about the registrant of the URL. That personal data (and process) should not run afoul of the emerging GDPRs. Probably, eventually, ICANN will have to interact (as a stakeholder) with global and national efforts at GDPR policy making to reduce the "friction" between the minimum public data set and various GDPRs.
> 
> It is my opinion that it would be a mistake for either this WG to suggest, or ICANN to try to make it a policy, that privacy/proxy services be provided by all registrars It is up to registrars and registrants to sort out (through the market?) the terms under which privacy/proxy services are provided in the domain name market. I think privacy/proxy services are important but let the registrars and their customers sort that out in the market for related registration services. We should keep our focus, at this point, on the minimum public data set.
> 
> Sam Lanfranco
> (NCSG/NPOC)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg