[Gnso-epdp-team] FW: Consensus: more granular approach needed

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Tue Aug 14 13:47:43 UTC 2018

Here is a re-send of the email I sent. Tatiana sent it Aug 9

In determining whether consensus exists on certain key elements of the temp spec, I think we are suffering from the way items were grouped. Some SG’s said “No” because they objected to one thing in the group, but a more granular approach might find wider agreement on certain elements within that grouping.

My example here is the responses to Appendix A 2.4., 2.5., 2.5.1. -, 2.5.2., 2.6., which deals with how the temp spec redacts certain PII from public Whois. NCSG strongly supports those redactions, and in fact we think ICANN has little choice about it because of the GDPR. However, on the survey we see only 2 SGs supporting that question. If we look closer, however, there is actually not much disagreement with the redaction.

Registrars support redaction “but questions whether this data should continue to be collected as they are not necessary, and do not comply with data minimization principle.”

So the registrars are conflating the collection issue with the public display issue here. They do support redaction of the data elements listed in the temp spec. So do the Registries. Ry SG comments call attention to the litigation around collection of the redacted data and has some other comments unrelated to the question whether the temp spec’s redaction requirements are acceptable. So again we have a debate about collection rather than display.

Even the GAC comments do not dispute that the data should be redacted. They call for changing “redacted for privacy” to “redacted for data protection” in the display, and call for additional text with instructions about how to get access to redacted data.

Both SSAC and IPC also do not question that redaction is required for GDPR compliance but question the scope of the redaction, saying that it may not be necessary in cases where GDPR does not apply (however they overlook or ignore the existence of similar data protection laws in other jurisdictions). SSAC also make a somewhat irrelevant call for 2 years data retention (which the EDPB has already questioned).

In short, a careful review of the comments shows that there is almost no opposition to the selection of data that the temp spec asks to be redacted. We are close to consensus on that vital issue. If it is lumped in with a bunch of other issues, however, more SGs and ACs can find something they don’t like. Since the redaction is fundamental to the temp spec, let’s pull that out and indicate something close to consensus on it.

Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology

Warm regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20180814/eb466949/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20180814/eb466949/ATT00001.txt>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list