[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners
jonathan matkowsky
jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net
Fri Sep 29 07:03:30 UTC 2017
Paul, that's an interesting reference. Thanks for sharing.
Here's the link to the GAC's recent comment I was referring to as well for
reference
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-sadag-final-09aug17/attachments/20170922/0108ae32/abuse-statistical-analysis-gac-comment-19sep17-0001.pdf
Benny, only after a *very specific* analysis of data controller, processor,
and sub-processing issues are considered--as well as of the recognition
some parties or companies may be functioning outside of those roles under
GDPR --can anyone form an opinion--and then only as it pertains to a
specific set of facts and circumstances.
I'm not sure the scope of this working group conceptually includes opininig
on historical Whois datasets outside of a next generation RDS any more so
than it would include opining on privacy issues in observing publicly
available IP addresses as the analysis of who is the data controller,
processor, sub-processor, and corollary contractually-related issues
certainly vary from one set of facts to another.
We need to generally ensure the privacy laws are taken seriously by not
undermining them unintentionally through generalizing them in ways that may
very well be, *way* off the mark. That discredits the opportunities that
GDPR presents to educate people about privacy principles, and does a great
disservice in my humble opinion because it has the _opposite_ effect. And
at the same time it comes off as particularly infuriating to those in the
anti-abuse community that governments--and the public--are so heavily
relying on to help safeguard the very principles being championed.
I do agree from a privacy perspective that the right to be forgotten seems
to be under some circumstances, a potentially relevant issue, but not sure
that can't be implemented. The key is within reason and figuring out what
that means in practice. An immediately obvious competing concern is that
miscreants of all kinds would try to abuse that principle--and in so many
ways.
I admit I haven't studied the legal memo related to RDS yet though. Hope
to catch up by Sunday (This month with religious holidays and travel on top
of that last week and next is tough for me.) cheers jonathan
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:50 PM benny at nordreg.se <benny at nordreg.se> wrote:
> I don’t see there have been any dispute of the value of Domaintools… What
> I have said and I will repeat, it might not be legal in the form it is
> today after GDPR are in full force next year.
> The problem as far as I can see are the historical data stored on private
> persons who are given a right to withdrawn consent for publishing there
> data.
>
> The right to be forgotten are very strong in EU, google have paid there
> share of fines for not cleaning out data.
>
>
> --
> Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen
>
> Benny Samuelsen
> Registry Manager - Domainexpert
>
> Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
> IANA-ID: 638
> Phone: +46.42197000
> Direct: +47.32260201
> Mobile: +47.40410200
>
> > On 29 Sep 2017, at 01:32, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > This came to me as a part of an ongoing investigation directly related
> to GDPR.
> >
> >> The EU Commission issued a Communication which states as follows:
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=JOIN:2017:450:FIN&rid=3
> >>
> >> More generally, online accountability should be further promoted. This
> means promoting measures to prevent the abuse of domain names for the
> distribution of unsolicited messages or phishing attacks. To this end, the
> Commission will work to improve the functioning of and the availability and
> accuracy of information in the Domain Name and IP WHOIS systems in line
> with the efforts of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
> >>
> >> While not a legal act per se, this document shows that there are
> lawmakers in the EU who understands the value of DomainTools services.
> >>
> > I think this puts an end to this conversation about whether abuse (not
> necessarily criminal concerns) is and remains a very important issue in the
> EU and this should be considered together with the GDPR.
> >
> > Paul Keating
> >
> > From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of jonathan
> matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>
> > Date: Friday, September 29, 2017 at 1:08 AM
> > To: John Bambenek <jcb at bambenekconsulting.com>
> > Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data
> Protection and Privacy Commissioners
> >
> >> The GAC's recommendations in their public comment on the recent
> statistical analysis of DNS abuse study shows that when you get down to it,
> there is already understanding by government that we must collect the
> necessary data elements for combatting abuse.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:18 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> >>> I want to me too this... this is the single biggest cause of the
> contention in this group. I am being told by people who don't do anti-abuse
> or investigations on what I need to do my job and when I tell them what I
> need to do my job, my opinion doesn't matter.
> >>> **We** are the experts in this field. It'd be nice when people are
> talking about what is needed to fight abuse, we at least consider the
> opinions of people that **actually fight said abuse**.
> >>> And we will be taking this message to the DPAs directly so they
> understand what's at stake.
> >>>
> >>> On 09/28/2017 05:10 PM, John Horton wrote:
> >>>> Chuck, let me briefly (I hope briefly) weigh in in response to that.
> >>>>
> >>>> My observation is that the group does agree that fighting abuse is a
> worthy endeavor -- I suspect you'd get unanimity on that point. My sense is
> that where there's disagreement may be on two points:
> >>>> • Whether anti-abuse types really need a Whois record of the
> domain name in question to fight abuse -- the argument has been made that
> Whois is so often falsified, or privacy-protected, etc. that Whois isn't
> really useful to anti-abuse types, and that there are more useful tools
> than Whois.
> >>>> • Whether the entire Whois data set (or, say, even 95% of it), and
> being able to reverse query against it, is useful to anti-abuse types.
> >>>> From my perspective, I do think that there are a few folks in this
> working group who, even when I or others have repeatedly insisted that (and
> provide examples of how) we genuinely need 1) Whois records on specific
> merchants or bad actors, and 2) need the entire corpus against which to
> reverse query, seem unwilling to take our representations and examples at
> face value. I guess I've become a little cynical as to whether, even if
> that argument is presented objectively and compellingly, working group
> members are willing to be persuaded of it or not.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> John Horton
> >>>> President and CEO, LegitScript
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Follow LegitScript: LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Blog |
> Newsletter
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I could be wrong but I think that we need to first convince
> ourselves as a
> >>>>> working group that fighting abuse is a critical and essential need
> and I
> >>>>> don't think that should be hard to do. A lot of you have made very
> strong
> >>>>> arguments in that regard and I believe that we have already agreed
> that
> >>>>> fighting abuse is a legitimate purpose for at least some RDS
> elements.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note WG agreement #11: "Criminal Investigation & DNS Abuse
> Mitigation is a
> >>>>> legitimate purpose for "Minimum Public Data Set" collection." We
> obviously
> >>>>> have to get beyond the MPDS and we will.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems to me that the following WG agreement, although not directly
> >>>>> related to abuse mitigation, sets a basis upon which we can further
> >>>>> deliberate the abuse mitigation purpose: " 17. A purpose of RDS is
> to
> >>>>> facilitate dissemination of gTLD registration data of record, such
> as domain
> >>>>> names and their domain contacts and name servers, in accordance with
> >>>>> applicable policy." I admit that there is a lot of work we must do
> to
> >>>>> develop requirements and ultimately policies to allow and support
> the use of
> >>>>> RDS data for abuse mitigation purposes but we can do that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think all of the following recent WG agreements indirectly support
> further
> >>>>> deliberation on the abuse mitigation purpose:
> >>>>> " 30. At least one element identifying the domain name registrant
> (i.e.,
> >>>>> registered name holder) must be collected and included in the RDS.
> >>>>> 31. Data enabling at least one way to contact the registrant must be
> >>>>> collected and included in the RDS.
> >>>>> 32. At a minimum, one or more email addresses must be collected for
> every
> >>>>> domain name included in the RDS, for contact roles that require an
> email
> >>>>> address for contactability.
> >>>>> 33. For resiliency, data enabling alternative or preferred method(s)
> of
> >>>>> contact should be included in the RDS; further deliberation to
> determine
> >>>>> whether such data element(s) should be optional or mandatory to
> collect.
> >>>>> 34. At least one element enabling contact must be based on an open
> standard
> >>>>> and not a proprietary communication method.
> >>>>> 35. To improve contactability with the domain name registrant (or
> authorized
> >>>>> agent of the registrant), the RDS must be capable of supporting at
> least one
> >>>>> alternative contact method as an optional field.
> >>>>> 36. Purpose-based contact (PBC) types identified (Admin, Legal,
> Technical,
> >>>>> Abuse, Proxy/Privacy, Business) must be supported by the RDS but
> optional
> >>>>> for registrants to provide.
> >>>>> 37. The URL of the Internic Complaint Site must be supported for
> inclusion
> >>>>> in the RDS.
> >>>>> 38. The Registrar Abuse Contact Email Address must be supported for
> >>>>> inclusion in the RDS, and must be provided by Registrars.
> >>>>> 39. Reseller Name MUST be supported by the RDS. Note: There may be a
> chain
> >>>>> or Resellers identified by Reseller Name.
> >>>>> 40. Per recently-approved consensus policy on consistent labeling and
> >>>>> display, BOTH the Registrar Abuse Contact Email and Registrar Abuse
> Contact
> >>>>> Phone must be supported for inclusion in the RDS, and MUST be
> provided by
> >>>>> Registrars.
> >>>>> 41. In the interest of maximizing contactability, additional contact
> methods
> >>>>> MUST be supported by the RDS as an open-ended list and be optional
> for
> >>>>> Registrants to provide. This does not preclude agreements on
> requirements to
> >>>>> include other contact methods.
> >>>>> 42. The RDS must support Registrant Postal Address data elements:
> Registrant
> >>>>> Street Address, City, State/Province, and Postal Code.
> >>>>> 43. The RDS must support Registrant Phone + Registrant Phone Ext
> (extension)
> >>>>> data elements " I call this one out in reaction to some discussion
> on the
> >>>>> WG list today about identification of the domain name registrant."
> >>>>> These may not go far enough for some but they provide a start that
> we can
> >>>>> build on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Chuck
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> >>>>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of theo geurts
> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 11:07 AM
> >>>>> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data
> >>>>> Protection and Privacy Commissioners
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hello Andrew,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1 I agree you need to be specific, but also you should ask, would a
> DPA
> >>>>> accept it? Regardless if that is a DPA in Europe or China or Jamaica.
> >>>>> Setting the baseline to the GDPR would be a mistake, these data
> protection
> >>>>> laws are always in motion. As such you need to implement data
> protection
> >>>>> principles when you define purpose. Did we really do that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2 I am not sure if there is a misapprehension. I do think we did not
> go out
> >>>>> of the box far enough. We somehow keep circling back to the WHOIS,
> and that
> >>>>> is somewhat strange given the composition of the WG.
> >>>>> We did put a ton of work into looking at the current data elements
> and all
> >>>>> that, but we never into the concept of no WHOIS/RDS and come up with
> a
> >>>>> solution in such a scenario.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we want to convince these policymakers of what we are facing
> abuse wise,
> >>>>> we must do better.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Theo
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 28-9-2017 19:11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >>>>> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:46:29PM +0200, theo geurts wrote:
> >>>>> >> I think it is meant that IP addresses will be considered personal
> >>>>> >> information under the GDPR, that concept might be new to folks in
> this
> >>>>> WG.
> >>>>> > I _know_ that. But there are two issues here:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > 1. It appears entirely clear, both from previous discussions
> and
> >>>>> > from the legal analysis that was just delivered, that
> collection
> >>>>> > of certain data (and we're still talking about collection,
> >>>>> > remember) is permitted if you have legitimate purposes.
> >>>>> > Therefore, we should be paying attention to those purposes,
> and be
> >>>>> > specific about it.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > 2. It is possible that any law, or any interpretation of the
> law,
> >>>>> > is being made with a misapprehension of how the Internet
> actually
> >>>>> > works. Quite frankly, it is apparent to me that an alarming
> >>>>> > number of policymakers have a deeply mistaken model for the
> way
> >>>>> > the Internet works, mostly aligned with a picture that looks
> like
> >>>>> > the way the phone system used to work. But we have to make
> policy
> >>>>> > for the actual Internet, rather than for some system that
> does not
> >>>>> > actually exist. This is why I sent that note the other day
> about
> >>>>> > figuring out what we want and then asking lawyers how that
> can be
> >>>>> > made to comport with such legal regimes as we know, rather
> than
> >>>>> > doing it the other way.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Best regards,
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > A
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________
> >>>> _________________
> >>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>>>
> >>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://
> mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>
> >>
> >> *******************************************************************
> >> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the
> designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary
> information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are
> not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this
> message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply
> e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
> >>
> >>
> *******************************************************************_______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list 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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
> --
Jonathan Matkowsky
--
*******************************************************************
This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated
recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and
may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated
recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you
receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete
this message. Thank you.
*******************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170929/267a2c77/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list