[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Notes from RDS PDP WG Meeting - 30 January
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Jan 31 04:30:43 UTC 2018
Thanks to Carlton and Greg Mounier for forwarding this letter.
I found this letter refreshing. Looking at:
- the presence of words such as "pragmatic" and
"workable" (both of which occur twice);
- a strong focus not only on law enforcement but
the investigations that lead up to legal action;
- the references to the public interest/policy (5 references);
- acknowledgement of ICANN's statement "to ensure
compliance with the GDPR while maintaining WHOIS
to the greatest extent possible"
gives me some hope that we may get through this
mess without destroying the usability of the Internet.
Alan
At 30/01/2018 07:57 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>...and while were at it, take a load of this....
>
><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/avramopoulos-et-al-to-marby-29jan18-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/avramopoulos-et-al-to-marby-29jan18-en.pdf
>
>-Carlton
>
>
>==============================
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>=============================
>
>On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Lisa Phifer
><<mailto:lisa at corecom.com>lisa at corecom.com> wrote:
>
>Dear all,
>
>Below please find notes from today’s RDS PDP WG meeting.
>
>To recap Action Items from today’s call:
><https://community.icann.org/x/8ge8B>https://community.icann.org/x/8ge8B
>
>Action: Chair to confirm change of VC on mailing list.
>
>Proposed WG agreement (subject to revision and
>confirmation via poll): The WG will use the
>following non-exhaustive list of criterion to
>determine if any proposed purpose for processing
>registration data may be legitimate: (a) The
>purpose must not be inconsistent with ICANN's
>mission, (d) The purpose must be inherent to the
>functionality of the DNS, AND (x) The purpose
>must satisfy at least one legal basis for
>processing as defined by data protection laws.
>
>Action: Leadership team to refine above proposed
>agreement to develop poll about this point,
>along with repeat of Q3 from last week's poll,
>with additional granularity, based on agreed
>criteria. WG members encouraged to participate
>in poll no later than Saturday COB.
>
>Best regards,
>Lisa
>
>
>
>Action Items and Notes from RDS PDP WG Call – 30 January 2018
>
>These high-level notes are designed to help PDP
>WG members navigate through the content of the
>call and are not meant as a substitute for the
>transcript and/or recording. The MP3,
>transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki.
>
>1. Roll Call/SOI Updates
>Please mute when not speaking and give your name
>when speaking for the transcript
>SOI Updates:
> * Andrew Sullivan will be a member of the
> IETF Administrative Oversight Committee starting at the IETF meeting in March
> * Chuck Gomes updated his SoI to reflect his
> support from Verisign although he is no longer
> representing Verisign's interests or the RySG
> * Mason Cole has left Donuts and joined Perkins Coie
> * Confirm Alex Deacon as a member of the WG
> Leadership Team to replace Susan.
> Action: Chair to confirm change of VC on mailing list.
>
> 2. Discuss list of criteria that make purposes legitimate for processing
>
> a. See GDPR definition of processing and
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431666/CommentSummary-24JanuaryPoll-v3.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1517268227000&api=v2>Q2
> poll results
> * Handout:
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431666/Handout-30January-RDSWGCall.pdf>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431666/Handout-30January-RDSWGCall.pdf
>
> * Question 2 from last week's poll:
> * Do you support the proposed WG Agreement
> from last week: Criteria to be used to
> determine whether any proposed purpose is
> legitimate for processing registration data
> are: a) In support of ICANN's mission; b) A
> legitimate interest pursued by the data
> controller; c) Necessary for the fulfillment of
> a contract; d) Inherent to functionality of the
> DNS; e) In the public interest; or f) Necessary
> for compliance with a legal obligation.
> * See GDPR definition on
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431666/Handout-30January-RDSWGCall.pdf>handout
> slide 3
> * Comment Summary:
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431666/CommentSummary-24JanuaryPoll-v3.pdf>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79431666/CommentSummary-24JanuaryPoll-v3.pdf
>
> * Overall, 54% supported ALL listed criteria
> * Comment Summary shows level of support for
> each listed criteria, ranging from 74 - 57%
> * Summary also shows level of explicit opposition to each listed criteria
> * General Comments Discussion:
> * All are encouraged to review the AC
> recording or transcript of the previous call to
> catch up before participating poll whenever
> possible - this will improve efficiency of discussions
> * Does anyone disagree with the
> statement that this list of criteria must be non-exhaustive?
> * Comments: Criteria should be fixed
> because ICANN's mission is fixed, GDPR should
> apply to personal data collected in applicable
> jurisdictions, as Internet evolves we may find
> that other data is needed so cannot be static,
> "Valuable and useful to law enforcement" is not
> enough to mandate collection - or another view:
> it is if that information is deemed important
> for protecting the DNS. and confidence in it
>
>Option a) In support of ICANN's mission
> * 74% support, 1 person explicitly opposed this criteria
> * Comments about Option a:
> * Are a) AND d) the only valid criteria?
> No, they are required but other reasons are valid as well
> * Do we need to examine all of the
> criteria before polling (as we did on the last call)?
> * Show of hands show more disagreement
> than agreement at this stage of discussion
> * Proposal: (a) would better be phrased
> as "not inconsistent with ICANN's mission"
> * Conclusion: Reasonably strong support for
> a) as one criteria for determining whether a
> purpose is legimate for processing registration data in some way.
>
> Option b) A legitimate interest pursued by data controller(s)
> * 60% supported, 7 comments explicitly opposed this
> * Comments about Option b:
> * Not clear at this point precisely who the data controllers ARE
> * This shouldn't exclude legitimate
> interests of third parties or data processors as enumerated by GDPR
> * This is a legal basis for processing not a criteria or a purpose
> * Why do we have criteria other than a) and d) or e)?
> * Are "third parties" = "operators on
> the Internet not involved in the registration of the domain name"
> * Is this a proxy discussion for how WG
> members view availability of registration data?
> * Conclusion: Possible approach to simplify
> list without enumerating all of the legal bases from GDPR:
> * The list of criteria could be [ a)
> plus d) ] plus a new criteria that the purpose
> must satisfy at least one legal basis for
> processing as defined by GDPR and other data
> protection laws (where a/d may be reworded)
> * Is a) a superset of d) - if so are
> both needed? They are not exclusive.
> * What is the implication of AND or OR
> in the proposed WG agreement? Would a purpose
> have to satisfy all 3 (AND) or just one (OR)?
>
> b. Determine next steps to reach agreement on criteria
>
>Proposed WG agreement (subject to revision and
>confirmation via poll): The WG will use the
>following non-exhaustive list of criterion to
>determine if any proposed purpose for processing
>registration data may be legitimate: (a) The
>purpose must not be inconsistent with ICANN's
>mission, (d) The purpose must be inherent to the
>functionality of the DNS, AND (x) The purpose
>must satisfy at least one legal basis for
>processing as defined by data protection laws.
>
>Action: Leadership team to refine above proposed
>agreement to develop poll about this point,
>along with repeat of Q3 from last week's poll,
>with additional granularity, based on agreed
>criteria. WG members encouraged to participate
>in poll no later than Saturday COB.
>
>3. Discuss list of purposes to determine which
>are legitimate for processing based on criteria - DEFERRED TO NEXT WEEK
>
>4. Confirm agreements for polling & next steps
>
>Action: Chair to confirm change of VC on mailing list.
>
>Proposed WG agreement (subject to revision and
>confirmation via poll): The WG will use the
>following non-exhaustive list of criterion to
>determine if any proposed purpose for processing
>registration data may be legitimate: (a) The
>purpose must not be inconsistent with ICANN's
>mission, (d) The purpose must be inherent to the
>functionality of the DNS, AND (x) The purpose
>must satisfy at least one legal basis for
>processing as defined by data protection laws.
>
>Action: Leadership team to refine above proposed
>agreement to develop poll about this point,
>along with repeat of Q3 from last week's poll,
>with additional granularity, based on agreed
>criteria. WG members encouraged to participate
>in poll no later than Saturday COB.
>
>5. Confirm next meeting: Tuesday 6 February at 17:00 UTC
>February call schedule Tuesdays @ 17:00 except for Wednesday Feb 21 @ 06.00
>Meeting Materials:
><https://community.icann.org/x/8ge8B>https://community.icann.org/x/8ge8B
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>
>1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:EYZ5yCT5wqwEDnAFyM6J63tg5euDooq+nvuNDubOyijZjl9gquj02AJMr2sR4sWZvlPsZK5jCZSq7djZXF/G9/dFCqBDSkG5NwbFbZxy/WySksmFGj+3tyHBNFMBGVt6
>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:
>
>1Grwrwo1bHgdfC88upsJ1FzyjWNExzf2iBTg6jrBWI25yDPaFMuRUkfNZh44RFiRUtR0YSJl7suT7B2qqn8OdhcLaz564Yc1f1KLUukAN8VwsaPjfY2NaCsYXKt8KLp8ImLq1lKhy9U3EpxS2su/LQ==
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20180130/60a1d083/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list