[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Fri Feb 15 01:54:11 UTC 2019


Hi Alan,

I have strong concerns that the current recommendations are
anti-choice, namely that they prevent registrants from even consenting
to publication of their full contact detail (i.e. all the contact
details that have historically been in the WHOIS).

According to the Feb 11, 2019 draft version at:

https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report

recommendation #10 forcibly redacts the registrant Name, Street,
Postal Code, Phone, Fax (which is completely missing in the table!).
Email is also redacted, subject to recommendation #13. Footnote 16
says it can be replaced by a form or anonymized email, but that
suffers from the issues I pointed out at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-February/000853.html

Now, Recommendation #13 also refers to "Recommendation X"
(non-existent!) which would allow the Registered Name Holder to
provider consent for publication of just its email address. However,
that doesn't seem to allow the registrant to consent to publication of
*ALL* of its contact details (i.e. name, phone number, fax, full
mailing address, etc.).

Many registrants *want* that fully published, and these
recommendations take away that choice from the registrant.

The same issue exists for the tech contact. Some folks want that
separate contact's full info to be collected and published, but aren't
going to be able to even consent to that (again, it just says "Yes"
for "Redacted", without the footnote to consent to publication). That
secondary contact point is going to be useful if the primary contact
has downtime, becomes invalid, is on vacation, or is otherwise
unavailable. With just 1 visible contact, it creates a single point of
failure, if communications are missed.

In essence, these recommendations are overapplying the GDPR (e.g. to
non-persons, and to those outside the EU), *even* if the registrant
wants to fully consent to full publication of their own data (Rec #17
shows that overapplication). It takes a "father knows best" approach,
to disregard the registrant's own wishes and doesn't give them the
opportunity to consent, to exercise their own choices. By all means,
if someone wants to not publish their data, respect that choice. But,
those who *do* want to publish their data are totally disrespected by
the current recommendations.

Folks have many legitimate reasons for wanting to fully publish their
own data, including not wanting their communications to be intercepted
by the registrar, and also to be able to openly demonstrate that they
own their domains! The WHOIS is supposed to be the authoritative
record of domain ownership (simply putting the data on the website
associated with a domain name is *evidence* of ownership, but isn't
*proof* -- the WHOIS is the proof; e.g. the website or nameservers can
be hacked, and have false info in the "evidence", but the WHOIS itself
should always show the true owner).

The text of the recommendations is also open to interpretation, which
is unwise. e.g. on page 40 it says openly:

"The Team could not come to agreement on this issue and as such no
recommendation is included in this Final Report in relation to whether
optional also means, optional or required for the registrar to offer."

i.e. if one can't even agree on what the recommendations *say*, that's
just wishy-washy, and doesn't help anyone. Recommendations should have
clarity, not purposeful ambiguity.

By forcing more info to be private (even against the wishes of the
registrant), this will erode the trust of the entire DNS.

BTW, for Recommendation #16, one might want to mention that registrars
routinely accurately determine the location of registrants, in order
to make sure that the correct sales tax is charged to them. I'm not
too concerned about loss of thick WHOIS (.com has proven that thin
WHOIS can work).

Copying the message originator (on page 2 of the draft letter) isn't
going to work, as it would *enable* spam (unless the originator is
somehow verified in advance). This was pointed out in the first
paragraph of:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-February/000853.html

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
































On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:28 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
>
> I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
>
> The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
>
> THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
>
> Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
>
> WORD and PDF formats are attached.
>
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list