[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Next possible move related to GDPR

[Carlton Samuels]

Bastiaan:
You seem adept at destroying context to feed your allergy.

My phrasing was in context of defining what I meant by majority. Your
interpretation blithely ignored the contextual meaning..There  is a word
for that I cannot recall at the minute.

Kindly,
-Carlton

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 3:54 am Bastiaan Goslings, <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>
wrote:

> Unless I am mistaken I do not think we have to make a ‘decision that will
> favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users’.
>
> Following this thread I am probably somewhat in the middle here: I
> definitely agree with the call for ‘balance’ but also think we have to be
> pragmatic and therefor need to establish what this required ’balance’ means
> in practical terms in order to help our EPDP members and alternates form a
> position.
>
> (Fyi I am somewhat allergic to statements like ‘we as end users advocates
> are morally bound to prioritize the interests of the majority’. Personally
> I automatically tend to go for the underdog position, I am not going to
> elaborate on how minority groups everywhere suffer from apparent political,
> religious and/or commercial majority viewpoints. No need to respond to
> that, it just a personal thing)
>
> In this case I don’t think are fundamentally disagreeing though, I think
> it is more a matter of tone. It does seem as if we are continuously
> emphasising that certain third parties should have access to non-public
> WHOIS data in the public interest, as if that is the only concern and it is
> bad enough that GDPR and the like make gated access even a requirement in
> the first place. Like, who cares about privacy, that is just a ‘minority’
> interest. The false security versus privacy paradigma I referred to before,
> combined with a ‘there are many more users than registrants’ rationale. And
> I know we hat is not what we think and/or are saying, but in terms of tone
> that is what sticks, at least with me.
>
> I am of the opinion that a more balanced approach is indeed necessary. In
> practical terms I think we can do so by on the one hand seeing to it that
> ICANN becomes compliant with applicable data protection legislation like
> the GDPR, which in my opinion is not ‘a given’ looking at the current Temp
> Spec, advise from the EDPB, and what certain stakeholders within the EPDP
> are striving for. Of course I also am convinced that third party access
> based on legitimate interests are a no brainer. But even if that is the
> case, we need to see to it that WHOIS data are ‘collected for specified,
> explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that
> is incompatible with those purposes’ as art 5.1 (b) of the GDPR says. If
> that is not taken care of properly then we might be looking at a future
> scenario where e.g. LEAs with certified access to non-public WHOIS data
> will not be able to get all the data required as they’ll no longer be
> collected…
>
> -Bastiaan
>
>
> > On 4 Sep 2018, at 10:02, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tijani,
> >
> > When nuance is possible, I have faith in our people to understand and
> work with that. Ideally we want both domain owners and domain users to be
> free from abuse. However, when there are decisions that will favour either
> the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users, our scale is
> balanced 98 to 2. Such hard choices - such as the very definitions of
> "harm" or "abuse"- will not be avoidable and we cannot shirk from that.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Evan
> >
> > PS: I am not sure that AFNIC/.fr is a good example, since well-run
> ccTLDs with residency requirements are typically not sources of significant
> end-user abuse. Were ICANN run like AFNIC or CIRA it's likely that gTLDs
> might not be such sources of abuse and this debate would be unnecessary.
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180904/6710114d/attachment-0001.html>