[Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report

Alex Deacon alex at colevalleyconsulting.com
Sun Nov 18 19:20:28 UTC 2018

Hi Amr,

If you recall from our numerous discussions on this topic a main point of
contention was around how specific we need to be GDPR compliant.   The IPC
has always argued that specificity is required - especially when defining
which 3rd parties with legitimate interests may be granted access to
non-public whois data.    When we landed on the current wording for purpose
2 during the face to face meeting in Barcelona, I raised the concern that
it was my experience that many do not believe that "security, stability and
resiliency" include IP interests.    This was confirmed as true by three
people in the room.

So it was and still is crystal clear to me vague language - including the
language recently suggested by Milton - does not cover IP.    I'm sure you
can appreciate why this is a major concern for us.  The compromise language
addressed this major issue for the IPC - allowing us to move forward.

If we all agree that abuse and intellectual property are legitimate
interests then we should state it.  As for why are these called out and
others are not, the IPC believes they should all enumerated and plans to
respond to Question #1 accordingly.

I'll also refer you to my email to the list on Sep 12th  (seems to long
ago!) where I addressed this exact issue.


Also, as you know personal data needs to be collected for specified,
explicit and legitimate purposes.  (Article 5(1)(b)) so given we removed
"including but not limited to" we need to be explicit and not use general

In addition the principle of transparency mentioned in recital 39 ("In
particular, the specific purposes for which personal data are processed
should be explicit and legitimate and determined at the time of collection
of the personal data") and 58 ("The principle of transparency requires that
any information addressed to the public or to the data subject be concise,
easily accessible and easy to understand..." are relevant.    This
principal is further defined in Article 12(1) and Article 13(1).     "


On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 10:38 AM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at protonmail.ch> wrote:

> Hi,
> I recall that there were questions/concerns raised by this wording of the
> recommendation that I don’t believe we ever got around to addressing. I’m
> not sure what the purpose is of singling out abuse and intellectual
> property in this recommendation. If there is a reason for doing this, it’d
> be helpful to understand.
> I would imagine that a recommendation that reads similar to what Milton
> suggested would cover both those categories. There are however, other
> legitimate interests for which lawful disclosure/access to non-public
> registration data is something we will need to work out in the next phase
> of the EPDP, apart from abuse and intellectual property. Why do these two
> get special status in this recommendation?
> Thanks.
> Amr
> On Nov 18, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team <
> gnso-epdp-team at icann.org> wrote:
> I think the awkwardness can be resolved simply by changing
> “standardized access to non-public registration data portion”
> to
> “standardized access to [the] non-public registration data portion”.
> Agree with Alex that we should not revise the compromise verbiage beyond
> the addition of “the”, above.
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Alex
> Deacon
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:02 AM
> *To:* milton at gatech.edu
> *Cc:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we
> finalize interim report
> Milton, All,
> I have to strongly object to Milton's suggestion that the text of Rec #2
> be updated as he suggests.   We debated the language for Purpose B (now
> purpose 2 of Rec #1) for weeks if not months - reviewing many versions and
> numerous iterations.    By the time we all got to Barcelona the current
> language of purpose #2 is where we ended up and if you remember I expressed
> the deep concern the IPC had with the language.
> In order to move forward James B. suggested a compromise - resulting in
> what is now Rec #2 - addressing our concern and allowing us to move
> forward.  I greatly appreciated (and still appreciate) this pragmatic
> suggestion from James and was encouraged that there was no objection from
> any of us in the room.
> The request that we change the language of Rec #2 essentially undoes this
> compromise and puts us back in time many weeks.  A major change to the
> intent of  a recommendation such as this is inappropriate and must not be
> allowed.
> Regards,
> Alex
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
> All, I have been going through the Exec Summary of the interim report and
> have found some issues. Most of these are grammar or copy editing fixes
> that I hope we can accept without controversy. One of them has a
> substantive element, though.
> Footnote 2, page 4: “the EPDP Team anticipates taking a formal consensus
> call..”
> Shouldn’t this be “WILL take a formal consensus call…” To say
> "anticipates" sounds like we might not do so if it’s not convenient. We are
> required to take a consensus call
> Line 150-151: The wording of Preliminary Rec 2 is awkward and
> ungrammatical. It now reads:
> “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for
> standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP
> regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding
> abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already
> collected.” This should be changed to:
> “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of
> non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.”
> Page 6, footnote 3. Delete. I thought we had agreed that after agreeing on
> Preliminary Agreement #3 that new policies on accuracy were out of scope.
> Page 6, footnote 4. This can be deleted, as the same text is included
> later on in page 7, lines 170-172
> Milton Mueller
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-epdp-team&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7C8b66eb40e37f44b1a15c08d64d7ff8a7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636781609363227842&sdata=23J%2FxmsboyqpPu5%2BpwxxV0qbVUgyPnpsxdwu7Mwf8NA%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20181118/29234773/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list