[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Potential Additional Questions to ICANN Org

Wed Mar 2 14:26:36 UTC 2022

Hello all,

There’s a lot going on in this thread which I am not able to respond to at this time, but I do want to respond to one specific suggestion:

> Would it be that much of an additional burden to ask the Registrants if the information contained in the Whois/RDDS is accurate and share those results with the group?

There is an annual Whois data confirmation email sent out to all registrants, which includes the current registration data and asks them if it is accurate, along with an explanation that they are required to provide accurate and up-to-date information and instructions for how to update it if necessary. 

Does that not match up with this idea of asking Registrants if their Whois info is accurate? 

Thanks, 

-- 
Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E

Policy & Privacy Manager
Pronouns: she/they

swyld at tucows.com 

From: Michael Palage
Sent: March 2, 2022 9:10 AM
To: 'Becky Burr'; 'STROUNGI Melina'; 'Becky Burr'
Cc: gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Potential Additional Questions to ICANN Org

Hello Becky,

In my capacity as the Chair, I view my responsibilities as trying to balance the respective perspectives of all participants and making sure that we document all of these perspectives in our work product.  As noted before, I would like to avoid some of the holes identified in the SSAD ODA, by making sure that we look at all sides of issues (both popular and unpopular).

I think most will agree with me, that there have been some deeply held and divergent viewpoints that were crystal clear at the start of this Group’s work, see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20211005/46ce22c7/AccuracyScopingTeam-InitialInput-5October2021-0001.pdf  I think it is fair to characterize the Registrar’s position as follows: the 2013 RAA provides a black and white guidance as to the term accuracy; recent ICANN Compliance reports indicate that there are a de minimis number of accuracy complaints; therefore there is no problem let’s move on. I also think it is fair to characterize the BC, IPC, ALAC, SSAC and GAC respective positions as the 2013 RAA definition is over narrow; the recent ICANN Compliance reports are under-reporting inaccuracy because legitimate third party access has largely gone dark, therefore we need to reinitiate some type of accuracy survey to see the scope of the problem (if any) and propose a new definition (if necessary).

So as Chair, I started out with the proposition that the 2013 RAA was a rebuttal status quo baseline for defining accuracy. Initially, there were several groups that rebutted that definition.  In fact, the push back was so hard we did not even use the term “definition” for a couple of weeks.   However, after ICANN Compliance provided their feedback it was clear that the scope of accuracy was not simply a 2013 RAA black and white syntactical and operational exercise.  My job as Chair was then to help define the scope of that “grey” for purposes of our working definition as well as potential studies that might be undertaken to help document any accuracy problem. 

In response to calls from a number of members that wanted to restart the ARS, which was unilaterally suspended by ICANN Org after the GDPR went into effect, my job as Chair was to help find a potential middle ground if possible. While being respectful of contracting parties data privacy concerns, including the lack of no DPA with ICANN, I wanted to find the optimal path forward for a potential new ARS that would be in compliant with Article 6.1.(f) of the GDPR: 

processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

So instead of processing data from a universe of over 200 million gTLD domain registrations, I thought ICANN Org would be able to maximize its legitimate interest (while also taking into account the interests of the registrant) by focusing on a much narrower class of domain names associated with documented DNS abuse. Now there is almost universal recognition that there is a DNS Abuse problem, see DNS Abuse Institute, topDNS, Global Cyber Alliance, EU DNS Abuser Report, and CoCCA DSI. In fact the Registries and Registrars are both supportive of the upcoming DNS Abuse session that will undertake an analysis between maliciously registered domain names and compromised domain names.  

What I find odd is the almost universal support of Registries and Registrars to look at a DNS Abuse subset of domains to make a “malicious / comprised” determination, yet the mere suggestion that this same subset of data could be analyzed through the lens of “accuracy” is somehow verboten. I think you would agree with me that to an objective outside observer, the Registrar pushback appears less likely tied to statistical purity and potentially more likely because of what those results may reveal.  To those Registries and Registrars that may be participating in the malicious v compromised domain name study, I assume you are contacting Registrants. Would it be that much of an additional burden to ask the Registrants if the information contained in the Whois/RDDS is accurate and share those results with the group?  

In respond to your comment about “understand[ing] the interest in asking ICANN about its legal advice, but I am skeptical that will prove particularly enlightening.” Perhaps if ICANN Legal just provided a legal basis to the community instead of making self-serving proclamations about its role that would help out from a trust building exercise.  These are the concerns that I heard on the call last week when Thomas raised the issue about the lack of a DPA and Stephanie’s repeated request for ICANN to file a DPIA over the past several years.  Additionally, there have been other members that have raised similar concerns, so as Chair I will continue to push for these voices within the Working Group to be heard and to obtain the data for this group to make a factual determination.

Best regards,

Michael

From: Becky Burr <BBurr at hwglaw.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 1:29 PM
To: 'STROUNGI Melina' <Melina.STROUNGI at ec.europa.eu>; 'Becky Burr' <becky.burr at board.icann.org>; michael at palage.com
Cc: gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Potential Additional Questions to ICANN Org

Re "clearing the bar" for legitimate interests not outweighed by the data subjects' privacy rights, what I think is probably not particularly relevant.  In the end, it will fall to the party granting access to the data (i.e., the Contracted Party) to make that call.  But in general I do agree that processing based on a specific cause for concern will usually be easier to justify under GDPR.

That said, I do agree with the CPs who expressed concern about skewed results.  If we want to actually understand the volume and nature of inaccuracy across the entire data set and we wanted an answer that cannot be dismissed by one group of stakeholders or another, then a proactive audit that looks at registrant data across domains and across sponsoring registrars is likely necessary.  I'm not a statistics guru, but I suspect you could design a study that looked at a subset of the data, but looking only at the subset of data that has already been identified as inaccurate seems very problematic to me.

I understand the interest in asking ICANN about its legal advice, but I am skeptical that will prove particularly enlightening.  

While I'd prefer to use the actual language from the 6.1(f) exception (legitimate interests not overridden by the interests/rights/freedoms of the data subject) using "under the GDPR" rather than "proportionate" also works.

J. Beckwith Burr
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street NW/8th Floor
Washington DC 20036
202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)

From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael at palage.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:14:56 PM
To: 'STROUNGI Melina'; 'Becky Burr'
Cc: gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Potential Additional Questions to ICANN Org 

Hello Becky,

I think we are in agreement that the processing/disclosing of non-public PII involves a two part test: legitimate interest and proportionate interest.  As you and others may recall this is why I have proposed that any limited restart of the ARS program involve a sampling of the data from the monthly DAAR reporting. 

>From a legitimate interest standpoint, the domains reported in DAAR (e.g. malware, phishing, SPAM) are clearly involved in illegal activity in most jurisdictions. I do not see any situation in which ICANN would not easily clear this bar. Would you agree?

With regard to the proportionality (balancing test), as will be discussed in the upcoming ICANN73 meeting, there are two types of potential registrations involving abusive domains, maliciously registered domain names and compromised domain names. From a “balancing test” ICANN easily clears any proportionality bar when looking at maliciously registered domain names.  Would you agree? 

With regard to compromised domains, while this balancing test is a little more substantive than with malicious domain names, I believe this is a bar that ICANN Org and the Contracting Parties should easily be able to clear in almost every scenario. Unlike the old Whois/RDDS that made registrant data publicly available for scraping, this proposed audit would be limited to a restrictive number of parties, ICANN, third-party vendor, and contracting party. Would you agree?

I am also in agreement with your comments distinguishing between targeted processing/disclosure versus bulk processing/disclosure.  This is why I made the specific proposal to restart ADR on a limited scale targeting just Abusive Domain Names reported via DAAR. This targeted focus should address your bulk processing claims. Would you agree? 

What I found disappointing when I brought this to the consideration of the entire Working Group is that several Contracting Parties opposed this potential reasonable path forward because they thought that this would potentially skew the accuracy results. These Contracting Parties instead were adamant that any survey would need to involve the entire data set. My concern with this position is that any demands to include the entire set is potentially a non-start for processing in a legal compliant manner per the GDPR. 

In order to further explore your claim that the DPA is a red hearing, perhaps the Registry and Registrars representatives could go back to their respective stakeholders groups and ask for scenarios in which they would be willing to transfer data to ICANN or a designated vendor to check the accuracy of data. Would you agree with me that this data point would be extremely helpful in resolving potential ambiguity between the parties and their respective roles?

In closing, I want to thank both Becky and Melina for your respective feedback and I look forward to additional constructive feedback going forward.

Best regards,

Michael

From: STROUNGI Melina <Melina.STROUNGI at ec.europa.eu> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org>; michael at palage.com
Cc: gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
Subject: RE: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Potential Additional Questions to ICANN Org

Dear Becky, all,

many thanks for your additional suggestions.

my two cents on the below:

I support the distinction proposed by Becky, but would recommend replacing ‘proportionate’ with ‘under the GDPR’ so we are fully covered.

The original question raised was “Is ICANN able to access registration data under the GDPR on the basis that it has a legitimate interest in checking the accuracy of the data? “
The reference alone to the GDPR means that indeed the balancing test has been taken into account. As you rightly point out the GDPR requires a balancing test when ‘legitimate interests’ is used as a legal basis. So in my view as long as there is a reference to the GDPR there is no need to explicitly add the proportionate part. It is already implied. Plus, a more general reference is more encompassing in the sense that it takes into account the totality of the balancing test (i.e., data subjects’ interests etc.)

Having said that I am all supportive of asking all of these questions (in general I am in favor of asking as many questions as we can think of as this is at the heart of our scoping tasks), but I would maintain –on top of what you suggest –the specific question on whether ICANN ever received or plans to receive legal advice on this particular topic.
If I recall correctly this had been discussed in our accuracy scoping meeting  of 17 February and was proposed as a question to be addressed to Brian so he can forward it to ICANN compliance.

In order to be able to progress with our discussions, it is important to know where exactly ICANN would base their assessment on these questions (i.e., whether they have received specific in-house or external legal advice, including but not limited to any correspondence with the EDPB). 

I have now tried to integrate Becky’s suggestion to the original questions. Hope this helps.

Question 1
1. Does ICANN have a legitimate interest under the GDPR in accessing domain name registration data in response to complaints that the data is inaccurate? Has ICANN ever received or plans to receive legal advice on this particular topic?  
2. Does ICANN have a legitimate interest under the GDPR in proactively acquiring bulk access to domain name registration data to undertake an accuracy audit, even with respect to data for which it has no basis to question its accuracy? Has ICANN ever received or plans to receive legal advice on this particular topic?  
Question 2
For either scenario a or b under question 1: Does ICANN believe that a Data Protection Agreement between itself and the Contracted Parties is a necessary legal requirement for requesting and receiving this data, and if so for what legal reason? What happens if the registrar receiving the access request disagrees with ICANN's application of the balancing test, i.e., does ICANN have the contractual authority to enforce its access request? 
Best,
Melina

From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Becky Burr
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:27 PM
To: michael at palage.com
Cc: gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Potential Additional Questions to ICANN Org

Michael -

Respectfully, and without taking a position on whether these questions are relevant or timely, I think the questions need to be more nuanced to produce useful answers.
3. Does ICANN have a legitimate and proportionate interest in accessing individual registration records in response to credible complaints that the data is inaccurate? If so, is a DPA required to access data in such situations?  What happens if the registrar receiving the access request disagrees with ICANN's application of the balancing test, i.e., does ICANN have the contractual authority to enforce its access request? 
4. Does ICANN have a legitimate and proportionate interest in proactively acquiring bulk access to registrant data to undertake an accuracy audit, even with respect to data for which it has no basis to question its accuracy?  If so, is a DPA necessary to do so?  What happens if the registrar receiving the access request disagrees with ICANN's application of the balancing test, i.e., does ICANN have the contractual authority to enforce its access request?
It is important to keep in mind that a legitimate interest is necessary but not sufficient under GDPR.  The processing necessary to satisfy a legitimate interest must be proportionate, i.e., not outweighed by the privacy rights of the individual data subject(s).  As a result, the two situations (access to a single record based on reasonable grounds to believe the data is inaccurate v. proactive access without individualized suspicion) are quite different from a data protection perspective, with the first being far less complicated to defend.  In addition, a CP's contractual obligations, e.g., under the RAA, may be different in those situations.

FWIW, I think the DPA issue is a bit of a red herring here.   Presumably, ICANN's requests for one-off data can be handled in the same way that anyone else's access request is handled, e.g., if the data is to be transferred outside of the EU by imposing controller to controller Standard Contractual Clauses as the terms and conditions of such access on a case-by-case basis.  If the EDPB were to confirm that ICANN's bulk access to data for proactive checking was legitimate and proportionate, it's clear to me that a narrowly focused DPA between ICANN and CPs applicable to data access for the specific purpose of checking accuracy (e.g., prohibiting onward transfer, etc.) could be crafted.  The real question is whether (i) the temp spec /epdp phase 1 policy obligating CPs to provide reasonable access for legitimate and proportionate purposes encompasses bulk access or (ii) some other provision of the agreements produces an obligation to provide bulk access.  

Apologies for being pedantic here.  None of us can say with any certainty what GDPR does or does not permit as that determination is ultimately made by individual data protection authorities and/or the EDPB.  We are asking ICANN for its views on what GDPR would permit in specific circumstances, so the relevant circumstances should be articulated precisely to produce useful answers.  

b

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 5:12 PM Michael Palage <michael at palage.com> wrote:
Hello Everyone,

Over the past couple of weeks there has been a recurring theme in our calls and in some of the side discussions that I have had with some members regarding about how the potential lack of a Data Processing Agreement between ICANN Org and the Contracting Parties might negatively impact our future work and/or recommendations.

Therefore I would like to propose to the group for their consideration the following additional questions that we may want to propose to ICANN Org as we continue our work:

•            “Is ICANN able to access registration data under the GDPR on the basis that it has a legitimate interest in checking the accuracy of the data?  Has ICANN ever received or plans to receive legal advice on this particular topic?  

•            Does ICANN believe that the Data Protection Agreement between itself and the Contracted Parties is a necessary legal requirement for requesting and receiving this data, and if so for what legal reason?"  

As always I welcome any thoughts and or considerations?

Best regards,

Michael

_______________________________________________
GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list
GNSO-Accuracy-ST at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220302/512e929c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 10803BAFF17A41938FEAF6C130FA7F21.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15054 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220302/512e929c/10803BAFF17A41938FEAF6C130FA7F21.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 77087A1DBD9941649074E07B725D24F7.png
Type: image/png
Size: 146 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220302/512e929c/77087A1DBD9941649074E07B725D24F7.png>