[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Urgent EPDP question
gtheo
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Mon Oct 15 08:47:38 UTC 2018
While the GDPR makes a distinction it is a moving target, the Privacy
regulation will not make a distinction (current draft).
Plus I wonder how to deal with recommendation 7 from the Berlin Group?
https://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/publikationen/working-paper/2017/2017-IWGDPT_Working_Paper_Firmware_Updates-en.pdf
Why do we not make the distinction on a browser level through SSL
certificates rather then WHOIS and have Certificate Authorities do the
validation and verification of such legal entities?
https://www.ssl.com/article/dv-ov-and-ev-certificates/
A simple OV SLL validated cert does already do what the majority wants
and price should not be an issue, plus it is easier for an internet user
to verify. Do we want tougher verification and validation? Then perhaps
propose an Extended Validated SSL?
But perhaps such solutions already been discussed on this list and
deemed not to be a silver bullet?
Best.
Theo
Kan Kaili schreef op 2018-10-15 09:59 AM:
> +1
>
> The very meaning of registering a "legal person" is to make it
> reachable by the public. There is no privacy involved. At least in
> the part of world I know of.
>
> Kaili
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alan Greenberg
> To: CPWG
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 12:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Urgent EPDP question
>
>
> Thanks for the quick replies.
>
> I agree that the issue that a legal person may have some "natural
> person" information associated with it. But there is no way that a
> registrar can reasonable parse that, so it is up to the registrant to
> rid their entries of natural person information if they choose to
> include it. And yes, "Alan Greenberg Inc" had personal information in
> it. As does alangreenberg.org. But no one forces me to have a domain
> name.
>
> I find particularly amusing the issue of a Legal Person including
> name-identifying e-mails. Clearly that is a choice which they may know
> about, but the registrar, registry or ICANN cannot. If you wish to be
> suitable amused, consider that there are several families in the US
> with a surname of "Contact". Abuse.Contact at gmail.com is potentially a
> protected address!
>
> Certainly registrars and registries would like to simplify their
> life. And adding a Natural/Legal flag will not be a trivial activity.
> But that does not imply it is not the right way to go.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 14/10/2018 11:42 PM, you wrote:
>
> In agreement of contractual parties of having 2 systems, one to
> protect the "natural person" privacy information for every one
> globally and not only those from Europe.
> The second is for the "legal persons" and because they're under
> licence agreements in the legal system of their respective countries.
> Hence moving to a two registered system has to have a limited and
> derminate timeframe to move towards the dual registrant system. I
> don't think their concerns about changing the system, but it seems it
> goes beyond that.
>
> If there are concerns about the micro commercial business for
> individual who function without any registration in their countries,
> it would be their individual problem in how to be accountable to their
> countries requirements.
>
> Nadira
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 05:01 Holly Raiche <
> h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> Folks
>
> An argument against differentiation is that the contracted
> parties want to be able, as much as possible, to implement one system
> for managing information rather than having to differentiate between
> the license of a name being a natural person and the licensee of a
> name being a corporate person.
>
> Another is says that there are circumstances where information
> about legal entities may amount to personal information - for example,
> when a small business (usually a legal person) has used the actual
> name of the person as the business name, or where, in the case of a
> legal person, the contact details provided are for a named individual
> - thus GDPR protections should apply uniformly.
>
> My personal view is that, from the perspective of users, the
> protections of GDPR really need only apply to natural persons.
>
> That means that companies will need to be careful not to provide
> personal contact information for the RAA/Registry agreements. And
> from an end user point of view, the management of systems to
> differentiate legal from natural persons is not our concern.
>
>
> Holly
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Alan Greenberg
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
> >
> > Here is a question that we need an answer on no later than
> Tuesday morning.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > _______________________________________________
> > registration-issues-wg mailing list
> > registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
More information about the CPWG
mailing list