[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Urgent EPDP question
Michele Neylon - Blacknight
michele at blacknight.com
Mon Oct 15 09:01:15 UTC 2018
You can see exactly which version of the RAA registrars are signed onto here:
While there might have been one or two left on the 2009 contract up until relatively recently I cannot find any on the list now.
Mr Michele Neylon
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 15/10/2018, 08:17, "registration-issues-wg on behalf of Derek Smythe" <registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of derek at aa419.org> wrote:
Yes, agreed 100%.
Contracted parties should treat Legal Persons differently from Natural
We are essentially asking consumers to sign a blank check/cheque when
they try and deal with a new business that's GDPR protected as they
can't do any form of due diligence in reality. This makes any consumer
a potential target to loss of privacy, fraud and more.
The only argument should really be as to whether this extends to all
Natural Persons or just those of the EU.
We need to consider a major concern here is the abuse of domains. How
do we protect or mitigate? This is what keeps us all safer. Law
enforcement simply cannot do it all as is a matter of record. Nor will
litigation for numerous reasons.
We also need to ask what happens is a domain claims to be a natural
person, but is used for a company? We most certainly have malicious
"Interpol", "United Nations" clone domains out there registered to
natural persons. And fictitious companies. Even a registrant name "Bar
Clay" used for a fake bank. This needs to be addressed as well as we
are guaranteed to see abuse of the definitions here.
> (As you may note if you looked at the RDS-WHOIS2 report, registrars under the 2013 RAA must do some validation of contact information for new an transfered domains, but none to simple renewal. so there are currently 140,000,000 domains without verified information (5 years after the 2013 RAA came into force) and there is no requirement to ever validate their information - so unspecified time frames can last a LONG time.)
I believe we see the most abuse at the start of the domain's life
cycle and the chance of abuse declines over time. This has most
certainly been my experience in advance fee fraud. So we can be
somewhat flexible on older established domains.
A bigger danger is registrars that have not signed the RAA 2013 and
still bound under older versions of the RAA. I discovered one
recently, much abused.
A potential loophole is in private domain resales. We encounter
situations where the new owner simply changes the emails and not the
other details, then starts abusing that domain. This is also used as a
stepping stone to purchase new domains at the original registrar.
Something to chew on, three years old but still as valid as ever:
Obviously there is a risk in displaying Legal Persons details. But if
they can't protect themselves, how can they be expected to protect
those they deal with? A simple explanation page to each registrant
email would be simpler than trying to fix later where we're heading to.
Artists Against 419
On 2018/10/15 03:12, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Here is a question that we need an answer on no later than Tuesday
> GDPR requires the information related to Natural Persons be protected
> (for those resident in Europe) be protected. GDPR does not apply to
> Legal Persons (ie companies).
> ICANN's Temporary Spec allows contracted parties to treat all
> registrant alike and subject to GDPR.
> The EPDP Charter includes questions about whether contracted parties
> may or must treat Legal Persons differently from Natural Persons.
> The GAC, BC and IPC have made strong statements about the need to
> restrict GDPS to Natural Persons. The contracted parties are pushing
> back - strongly. The words vary, but in essence what they are saying
> ranges from there should be no constraint on them to yes, they may
> differentiate but with an unspecified time-frame. (As you may note if
> you looked at the RDS-WHOIS2 report, registrars under the 2013 RAA
> must do some validation of contact information for new an transfered
> domains, but none to simple renewal. so there are currently
> 140,000,000 domains without verified information (5 years after the
> 2013 RAA came into force) and there is no requirement to ever validate
> their information - so unspecified time frames can last a LONG time.)
> I personally feel that it is essential that we should differentiate
> between legal persons and natural persons, just as GDPR and other
> privacy legislation does.
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
More information about the registration-issues-wg