<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Well, I guess I must
be confused. Here are the results of the NORC study, please
tell me how I should be reading these. P2, executive summary.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie<br>
</font></font></p>
<p>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</p>
<div class="textLayer" style="width: 1019px; height: 1319px;">
<div style="left: 120px; top: 60.5385px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.00091);">NORC</div>
<div style="left: 178.20049999999998px; top: 63.524999999999906px;
font-size: 14.999999999999998px; font-family: sans-serif;">|</div>
<div style="left: 186.101px; top: 63.525px; font-size: 15px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.00108);">Project
Summary Report</div>
<div style="left: 625.201px; top: 1243.13px; font-size: 15px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.00146);">WHOIS
Registrant I</div>
<div style="left: 756.901px; top: 1243.13px; font-size: 15px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.999737);">dentification
Study</div>
<div style="left: 879.3px; top: 1243.13px; font-size: 15px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.01173);"> | 2 </div>
<div style="left: 120px; top: 120.695px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00303);">Nevertheless,
NORC has produced a coded set of data</div>
<div style="left: 517.699px; top: 120.695px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00259);"> that is useful
for its intended purpose—an </div>
<div style="left: 120px; top: 152.295px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00274);">exploratory
study of registrant and domain user char</div>
<div style="left: 504.401px; top: 152.295px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00221);">acteristics and
the types of domain use activities. </div>
<div style="left: 120px; top: 203.896px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00649);">With respect to
answering </div>
<div style="left: 316.5px; top: 203.896px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00182);">the issues
posed by the GAC: </div>
<div style="left: 149.99919px; top: 255.44993820312484px;
font-size: 18.3px; font-family: sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="left: 179.998px; top: 255.595px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.08474);">Percentage of
registrants that are natural versus legal persons</div>
<div style="left: 664.698px; top: 255.595px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00215);">: Based on our
analysis of the </div>
<div style="left: 179.998px; top: 287.195px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00274);">WHOIS records
retrieved from a random sample of</div>
<div style="left: 558.199px; top: 287.195px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00563);"> 1,600 domains
from the top five gTLDs, </div>
<div style="left: 209.99939999999998px; top: 338.0022389843749px;
font-size: 18.3px; font-family: sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="left: 239.999px; top: 340.095px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00322);">39 percent (±
2.4 percent</div>
<div style="left: 423.59999999999997px; top: 337.67529999999994px;
font-size: 11.699999999999998px; font-family: serif;">1</div>
<div style="left: 429.5px; top: 340.095px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00303);">) appear to be
registered by legal persons </div>
<div style="left: 210.00064999999995px; top: 390.9015189843749px;
font-size: 18.3px; font-family: sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="left: 240px; top: 392.995px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00287);">33 percent (±
2.3 percent) appear to</div>
<div style="left: 502.1px; top: 392.995px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00254);"> be registered
by natural persons </div>
<div style="left: 210.0006499999999px; top: 443.901978984375px;
font-size: 18.3px; font-family: sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="left: 240px; top: 445.995px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00307);">20 percent (±
2.0 percent) were registered using a privacy or proxy service. </div>
<div style="left: 210.0006499999999px; top: 496.801788984375px;
font-size: 18.3px; font-family: sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="left: 240px; top: 498.895px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00722);">We were unable
to classify the remaining 8 pe</div>
<div style="left: 580.1px; top: 498.895px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00232);">rcent (± 1.4
percent) using data available </div>
<div style="left: 240px; top: 530.594px; font-size: 18.3px;
font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00271);">from WHOIS. </div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-06-02 16:15, Dotzero wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ4XoYcjZDcn2r-BTmcGq7FUfRp50c6SXedyN1Djo3TOK0TJJg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>The overwhelming majority of domains registered would
be considered for commercial purposes. The fact that a
small percentage of domains are registered by individuals
for personal use should not be the determining factor as
to what is appropriate for ICANN to do. In fact, many of
what people assert are personal domains have advertising
on them and would therefor be considered by almost any
jurisdiction to be engaged in a commercial activity. This
includes many (most?) parked domains.<br>
<br>
</div>
Under these circumstances, having disclosure requirement in
registry/registrar agreements seems very appropriate and
reasonable. Adding in the fact that "private registration"
is an option reduces the scope of the issue even further.<br>
<br>
</div>
This is starting to increasingly look like a case of throwing
the baby out with the bath water.<br>
<br>
</div>
Michael Hammer<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:38 PM,
Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">This clause
has not been acceptable in the past, even before
GDPR. I think it is worth pointing out that what is
in the ICANN agreements has been repeatedly pointed
out, notably by the Art 29 WG, but certainly by
others such as the IWGDPT, as violating DP law.
These documents I believe are all in our
repository. So please let us not assume that what
has been happening is ok, even if we sign contract
after contract with the same offending clauses in
them. Consent in most jurisdictions has to be some
variant of "free, enlightened, and informed". Noone
can be compelled to consent to a practice that is
disproportionate or fails the necessity test...An
ability to withdraw consent has to be available. I
won't go on and on but this clause obviously does
not pass this test.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">In my
opinion, the longer ICANN tries to stymie the DPAs
and ignore necessary changes in privacy policy, the
greater the risk they run that a viral campaign will
be launched among ordinary users, to appeal to the
Courts. DPAs try to effect change through
dialogue. WHen dialogue fails, individuals have to
take cases to Court. We don't want that.</font></font></p>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie</font></font><br>
</p>
</font></span><span class=""> <br>
<div class="m_3900158585879485991moz-cite-prefix">On
2017-06-02 08:19, Volker Greimann wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">I was just reviewing the changes
to the registry agreement again and I noticed a
section that has relevance here as well and that had
not been discussed here. <br>
<br>
Apparently the definition of the purpose for personal
data collection as far as ICANN is concerned is the
job of the registry operators: <br>
<br>
2.18 Personal Data. Registry Operator shall (i) notify
each ICANN-accredited registrar that is a party to the
Registry-Registrar Agreement for the TLD of the
purposes for which data about any identified or
identifiable natural person (“Personal Data”)
submitted to Registry Operator by such registrar is
collected and used under this Agreement or otherwise
and the intended recipients (or categories of
recipients) of such Personal Data, and (ii) require
such registrar to obtain the consent of each
registrant in the TLD for such collection and use of
Personal Data. Registry Operator shall take reasonable
steps to protect Personal Data collected from such
registrar from loss, misuse, unauthorized disclosure,
alteration or destruction. Registry Operator shall not
use or authorize the use of Personal Data in a way
that is incompatible with the notice provided to
registrars. <br>
<br>
This does have some relevance to our current
discussion, so I thought I'd recklessly post it here!
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>