[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Blog re Session with European DPAs

Sat Mar 31 14:15:59 UTC 2018

That depends on how you define the problem. The solution here can be
defined as "what the DPAs will accept". It is in the economic interest
of registrars to display nothing to nobody, so "some ccTLD does X"
really isn't relevant in when the problem is defined correctly. GDPR and
no privacy legislation ever devised has controlled when I can publish my
own information or my ability to tell others to publish it. We can talk
about the finer points of implementation details, but the reality is
this, if GDPR was meant to restrict even private individuals from
publishing their own private information, the discussion we should be
having is whether to simply turn off the internet in Europe.

Twitter, snapchat, Facebook, instagram, et al, have solved this problem.
People are, in fact, going to continue to use these mediums to publish
nudes of themselves stored on third-party servers. GDPR isn't going to
stop that. Give individuals the choice when not engaging in commercial
activity to check a box (or uncheck a box) to have their information
displayed. We can continue to "debate" this, and I put debate in quotes
because when this suggestion isn't being ignored, I'm simply being told
I'm wrong with little to no rationale as to why, or I can just take this
to the DPAs and let them give us the answer.

j

On 3/31/18 8:59 AM, benny at nordreg.se wrote:
> That really doesn’t solve it completely ...
>
> Even registries in ccTLD world with privacy already for natural persons are recognizing and acting on what to be published in Whois of legal persons info.
>
>
>
>
> Blame autocorrect for any strange answers
>
>> On 31 Mar 2018, at 15:49, John Bambenek <jcb at bambenekconsulting.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well for 2 years I’ve been saying give people whois privacy for free, but everyone seems to ignore that. There is your solution. Let individuals decide whether they want their information published. 
>>
>> PROBLEM. SOLVED. 
>>
>> --
>> John Bambenek
>>
>>> On Mar 31, 2018, at 02:05, "benny at nordreg.se" <benny at nordreg.se> wrote:
>>>
>>> I find it highly offending that registrars are blamed for this mess. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180330_icann_cannot_expect_the_dpas_to_re_design_whois/
>>> It’s a bit late to come up with solutions for something which have been known to happen for nearly two years, especially from a part of the industry who have work hard to stop any changes.
>>>
>>> I as one of many requested you and others to come up with solutions which would work for all but all forces was used to fight that and fight for the status quo. 
>>>
>>> I fully understand and acknowledge that security need data to work with and these suggestions should have been brought to the table loooooong time ago.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 30 Mar 2018, at 18:08, jonathan m <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chuck—I’d like to get a discussion going if that’s okay with you. I’d like to know whether for the public data set, it is feasible to have the following solution for the registrant email. It’s based in part on both technical implications and policy requirements. 
>>>>
>>>> 1) Registrar required to notify registrants that starting on x date, the registrant org field will be relied on for purposes of treating the Whois record as an organizational domain rather than as belonging to a natural person. Check your record for accuracy because it may have implications for your privacy if you do not already have or subscribe to proxy or privacy services. A few reminders go out. Educate registrants they may want to update to “Domain Admin” instead of having their first and last name for organizational domains because starting on x date, existing organizational records will otherwise obfuscate or mask the local part of the registrant email in public Whois
>>>>
>>>> 2) For organizational domains, ICANN will prohibit masking the organizational domain name in the registrant email address. Registrars are free to mask the local part of the registrant email address in accordance with applicable law in the public Whois.
>>>>
>>>> 3) for natural persons, registrars will be required to use the same encrypted hash algorith so there is parity across databases even though there is no centralized database to manage the encryption. The policy will be enforced by ICANN and subject to auditing. They can warn registrants of the associated risks of compromise to give them a chance to take added precautions and purchase proxy or privacy services.
>>>>
>>>> This would be the minimum requirements for modifying public Whois registrant email address to avoid damaging the security and stability of the unique identifiers and DNS. If the downside of doing this is prohibitive, than ICANN should seek guidance in the April meeting on whether the public interest in not damaging security and stability outweighs the privacy interference of having email addresses remain in the phone books given its not a particularly strong personal indicator to begin with as privacy and proxy services are available to those that mind as long as they are notified.
>>>>
>>>> This would result in emails in Whois of natural data subjects being uniformly hashed so that you can freely see which hash owns what, and Whois of organizations being freely listed with any local part of such organizational emails being masked if required by applible law.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to hear a discussion on this from the group this week. Not on the legality of it under GDPR as the Article 29 working group can weigh in but first we need to discuss the architectural and policy issues.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks 
>>>> Jonathan 
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
>>>> For any of you who have not seen it, the ICANN Blog re the Session with European DPAs that occurred yesterday, here is the link:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-issues-update-discussion-with-article-29-en
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> *******************************************************************_______________________________________________
>>>> 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