[Gnso-epdp-team] redacted data

Thomas Rickert epdp at gdpr.ninja
Thu Aug 23 13:25:10 UTC 2018

Sorry, the first sentence was not finished:

...has the same information as the registrant field in many cases. 

…it should read. I guess the portion is around 60%.


> Am 23.08.2018 um 15:23 schrieb Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja>:
> We know that the organization field has the same information as the registrant field. Therefore, a logical consequence should be a redaction requirement for the org field, too.
> However, as I mentioned in the chat during the last call: The problem could go away if the EDPB gave its blessing to using the registrant’s self-identification as a compliant solution for distinguishing between natural and legal persons.
> Thomas 
>> Am 23.08.2018 um 15:19 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
>> Thanks, Thomas. So you want possibly more redaction.  I will add that to the list.
>>   <>
>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:epdp at gdpr.ninja <mailto:epdp at gdpr.ninja>] 
>> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 9:05 AM
>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja <mailto:epdp at gdpr.ninja>>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] redacted data
>> Milton,
>> Let me qualify the ISPCP input: Not redacting the „Organization“ field is problematic. 
>> Best,
>> Thomas
>> Am 23.08.2018 um 15:00 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
>> I have raised this point several times and I see it being avoided.
>> The redacted data elements are one of the most important aspects of the temp spec.
>> It is imperative that this group identify specifically which redactions we agree with and which ones certain stakeholders don’t agree with. This should be very simple to do.
>> I would propose that we add to the Triage report a simple list of each redacted data element, and then list who agrees and disagrees with its redaction. Those opposing a redaction must explain why they think publishing that data is consistent with GDPR and other privacy laws that may apply.
>> My understanding is that the NCSG, RySG, RrSG, ALAC and ISPC all are ok with the current set of redactions under the temp spec.
>> It is therefore incumbent upon the BC, IPC, and GAC to specify which data elements they think should be published and which they are ok with redacting.
>> Again, this seems like a very simple thing to do and as a form of “triage” would be most helpful for the group’s progress
>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20180823/bcbce9c5/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list