[Gnso-epdp-team] On the subject of ICANN's Bylaws...

[King, Brian]

Hey Amr,

Sure, I’m happy to clarify. And apologies for the delay as I’m traveling this week.

My use of the word “assumption” is in reference to assuming that redacted data is personal data, and therefore legally problematic. We understand that there has been some concern about the use case presented by ALAC based on this assumption, and we just want to point out that those concerns are irrelevant in cases where the registrant is a legal person and also in cases where a data protection law does not apply. So this cannot be our assumption.

Of course, where data protection law is implicated for a natural person, it seems that a 6.1.f analysis is applicable.

Brian J. King
Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs

T +1 443 761 3726
markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>

MarkMonitor
Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:44 AM
To: King, Brian <Brian.King at markmonitor.com>
Cc: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the subject of ICANN's Bylaws...

Hi Brian,


On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:59 PM, King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>> wrote:


[SNIP]


While I’d love to hear that folks outside of CSG and the ACs support redacting only data pertaining to registrants who are subject to GDPR (therefore eliminating the need for such a request), previous conversations in this EPDP do not support such an assumption. Until that particular pig grows its wings, the ALAC use case has even clearer merit.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, so if you could clarify, I’d appreciate it. Recommendations 16 (differentiation based on a geo basis) and 17 (differentiation of legal vs natural persons) of phase 1 of the EPDP have somewhat settled the issue of applicability of GNSO recommendations to registrants, irrespective of wether or not they are subject to GDPR. There was good reason for these recommendations ending up the way they did. Obviously, we don’t all agree with this, but it is what it is.

Granted, that there is still ongoing work on the legal vs natural issue, but like Alan Woods has said in his email…, that discussion should be taking place on the priority 2 workstream. In the meantime, I don’t see how previous conversations on “this EPDP” characterize the outcomes of phase 1 as assumptions. They’re better characterized as GNSO policy recommendations adopted by the Board, and in the process of being implemented.

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190817/d0f4b30f/attachment-0001.html>