[Gnso-epdp-team] Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2
Mark Svancarek (CELA)
marksv at microsoft.com
Tue Nov 6 00:38:29 UTC 2018
Sorry for being dense, I still have questions.
1. It is not surprising that the addition of a new process step would generate short term inefficiencies. It’s 5 years later – are the verification rates improved from 2014?
2. How would an optional “let me self-identify as a corporation” capability be likely to cause verification disruptions?
From: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 13:28
To: Mark Svancarek (CELA) <marksv at microsoft.com>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2
Shortly following the launch of the 2013 RAA’s requirements for WHOIS Verification, registrars noted that approx. 800,000 domains had been suspended in the first few months. The number continued to climb for a few years, and most were categorized as “false positives”
Here’s some coverage of that data at the time.
Any program that depends on Registrant self-categorization, self-declaration, or receipt & acting upon a notice has a huge error factor. For GoDaddy in 2014, the RAA verification rate was in the high 70% or low 80%, meaning that service to tens of thousands of customers was delayed or disrupted.
It’s this experience that causes Contracted Parties (but particularly Registrars) to be skeptical of any requirement to just “send an email” or “have the Registrant check a box.” It doesn’t scale.
From: "Mark Svancarek (CELA)" <marksv at microsoft.com<mailto:marksv at microsoft.com>>
Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 15:14
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2
James, can you clarify this:
“many of whom could lose access to their registrations.”
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 10:57
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2
ePDP Colleagues and WG Leadership -
This morning, Registry and Registrar representatives met to discuss the status of potential recommendations from Small Group #1 (Legal vs. Natural) and Small Group #2 (Geographic Regions) in our Draft Initial Report.
We concluded that there are some legal bases supporting these distinctions under GDPR and other data protection laws, and note that our Initial Report supports this. However, we reiterate our numerous high-level concerns against making any Consensus Policy recommendations for contractual requirements in these areas.
Our concerns involve:
* Legal - Aside from GDPR, other data protection laws are less clear on the distinction between legal and natural persons. Future regulations may contain contrary requirements. Furthermore, data of legal entities may contain or consist of personal information of natural persons, which would be entitled to protection under the GDPR and similar data protection regimes. Likewise, the geographic distinctions also create uncertainties.
* Technical - Contracted Parties are uniquely situated to assess the current level of the technological means available to us, and it is our stated position that a technical basis to reliably and confidently make such a distinction does not exist. Especially because any distinction schema would be dependent upon Registrant Self-Identification, which is fraught with error.
* Commercial - Developing and deploying this technology will involve significant costs, which may be prohibitive for smaller organizations and a barrier to market entry. Regardless of whether the distinction(s) are applied to new registrations or legacy domain names, it would be a logistical nightmare for Contracted Parties, and a source of confusion for Registrants, many of whom could lose access to their registrations.
* Asymmetrical Risks vs. Benefits - Contracted Parties would assume all regulatory risks of such an obligations, exclusively for the benefit of unburdened third parties.
* Scope - The distinction between Legal and Natural persons, or geographic regions, does not currently exist in the Domain Name System. Therefore, any recommendation mandating this change is outside the scope of the ePDP, and possibly the “picket fence” of Registrar and Registry contracts.
As a result, and for the avoidance of doubt, Contracted Parties oppose/reject any recommendations for new contractual requirements in the ePDP Draft Initial Report, and will remain opposed to these recommendations as we move towards final recommendations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team