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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Feb 15 14:42:12 UTC 2019


At 15/02/2019 02:45 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
>Thanks - I cannot join this evening’s (CET) 
>CPWG call and therefore want to express my 
>support for the statement. If it comes to a vote 
>during the call then please include my explicit endorsement.

Thanks!  If other ALAC Members are in the same 
position, a message of support prior to the 
meeting will allow us to know if there is sufficient support.



>Just a comment, and if not relevant then ignore, 
>but I took the final report from 11 February 
>that was sent to the GNSO council on the 12th as 
>a reference to see what our concerns apply to. I am somewhat confused:
>
>
>- Rec#16 states ‘that Registrars and Registry 
>Operators are permitted to differentiate between 
>registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.’
>
>Our response says ‘The report recommends that 
>contracted parties will not need to perform any 
>level of geographic differentiation due to the 
>difficulty of determining the location of the registrant.’
>
>I cannot find that argument (‘due to’) in 
>the draft final report. However rec#5 requires 
>registrars to a.o. collect address- incl country 
>data from registrants.  So on the one hand hand 
>the data are collected and (should be) accurate, 
>and on the other it is ‘difficult’ to 
>‘determine the location of the registrant’?

The contracted parties have said there is too 
much risk of incorrectly identifying whether GDPR 
is applicable to the registrant. We both have the 
same difficulty in reconciling these two facts.

The other factor is that a registrar outside of 
the EU who has resellers "might" have a reseller 
in the EU (ie a "processor") without their 
knowledge be cause resellers can have resellers 
can have resellers... and the original registrar 
has no idea who they are. That should be fixed by requiring that they know!



>- Rec#5 lists the ‘data elements to be 
>collected where some data elements are 
>automatically generated and, as indicated below, 
>in some cases it is optional for the registered 
>name holder to provide those data elements.
>
>The ‘tech fields’ (name, phone and email) in 
>the ‘data elements’ table are not 
>‘indicated’ as being ‘optional’. Like 
>for instance the ‘organization’ and 
>‘fax’ fields of the ‘registrant’ (= 
>‘opt.’) . Then there is a note ‘For the 
>purpose of the Technical contact, which is 
>optional for the Registered Name Holder to 
>complete (and if the Registrar provides this 
>option)’.  Etc. Why are the technical contact 
>data elements not labeled in the table as being ‘(opt.)’?

I have pointed out that apparent discrepancy and presume it will be fixed.

Alan



>thanks again, with regards
>Bastiaan
>
>
>
>
>***  Please note that this communication is 
>confidential, legally privileged, and subject to 
>a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer  ***
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Feb 2019, at 04:17, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Alan
> >
> > I think you have captured the outcomes of the 
> CPWG discussions very well.  I am happy with 
> this statement and have no further comments
> >
> > Holly
> >
> >> On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:28 AM, 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
> >> 
> <ALAC-Statement-v01.docx><ALAC-Statement-v01.pdf>_______________________________________________
> >> ALAC mailing list
> >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> ALAC Working Wiki: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list