[Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items from EPDP Team Phase 2 Meeting #11 - 1 August 2019 - ALAC Online buyers Use Case

[King, Brian]

Hey Amr and all,

I can’t speak authoritatively for ALAC’s intent, but I read this use case as allowing internet users to request (not have an entitlement to receive) information about a website they might do business with, a link they might click, etc.

I think we’re merely talking about allowing an internet user to ask the question, without presupposing any access outcome. Does that change your perspective?

I’m sympathetic to concerns raised about the bounds of ICANN’s remit, and I might find those concerns more persuasive if we were talking about guaranteed access in this case.

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: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 7:28 AM
To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg>
Cc: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items from EPDP Team Phase 2 Meeting #11 - 1 August 2019 - ALAC Online buyers Use Case

Hi,

The issue many of us have with this use case isn’t that Internet users should not be entitled to know who they elect to do business with over the web, so I don’t believe it is necessary to keep pushing that point. The issue is that in situations where entities conducting commerce over the Web do not have their contact information readily published on their websites, ICANN/gTLD policy is an inappropriate substitute to resolve this, due to ICANN’s narrow mission.

Speaking for myself, even if it were legal for ICANN to adopt policies that are beyond the scope of its mission (which I don’t think is the case here), it is undesirable for it to do so. Not having a clearly drawn line in the sand on what ICANN can regulate online via contractual compliance with Registries and Registrars, including selling and purchasing goods and services, is a prospect that I find to be very unappealing. It creates a great deal of uncertainty for both Contracted Parties providing domain name registration services, as well as registrants who utilize these services.

My interpretation of consumer protection from an ICANN perspective is that registrants are THE consumers of services in the ICANN context. In that context, proposing policy recommendations beyond the scope of ICANN’s mission is bad, not good, for consumer protection.  …, and like I said…, I don’t believe it to be complaint with data protection regulation, such as the GDPR, anyway.

Thanks.

Amr


On Aug 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia at tra.gov.eg>> wrote:


Hello All,

The ALAC online buyers online case is a real life scenario for why there needs to be a distinction between natural and legal persons. I shall not get into this debate. However, I note that consumers identity and even location is now available to buyers through many online applications, GDPR protects personal information of natural persons and not legal persons. It is only fair to Internet end users to allow them to have the contact information of the online businesses. This is particularly important in case Internet end users are dealing with small businesses online. You can find online businesses  contact details now through some existing applications. What and who are we trying to protect by not allowing this use case. Commercial websites should be encouraged to indicate who they are and publish their information. The architecture of the web inherently does not require real identity, but having a complete anonymous system is always an invitation to problems, making people feel less accountable and diminishing the trust in the network. A survey conducted by Bright Local showed that 60%  of customers prefer to call small businesses on the phone. The survey also showed that consumers now look beyond websites, RDS is only one tool of many however, prohibiting it to exist works against the norm. I also note that getting clarity in relation to the contracted parties liability in this regard is very important and if implemented information should only be provided if the case is absolutely clear.

I attach the updated user case, which is also available through the google doc

Best
Hadia el-Miniawi

From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 5:27 PM
To: Tara Whalen; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items from EPDP Team Phase 2 Meeting #11 - 1 August 2019 - ALAC Online buyers Use Case

Tara:
Responses inline below:


  1.  The ICANN Board resolved in May to have the ePDP “determine and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2."   https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-05-15-en#1.b<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D05-2D15-2Den-231.b&d=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=B8MS1O2ZkevjBW6hFhUe1Tfw1xhaFLotkSAAZ3g3DYQ&s=IAoMV6Yy5PfTOTRJ7D6oVAm1m5bFZMOIZHmnJjr4Gnk&e=>  Because the issue is not decided.
 Not quite correct. The Board noted that EPDP’s own Recommendation said that we would resolve the issue in Phase 2. The board did not tell us to do so. The resolution also notes the “Potential liability of a registered name holder's incorrect self-identification of a natural or legal person, which ultimately results in public display of personal data.” This concern was one of several that motivated our reluctance to attempt differentiation.

  1.  The EWG recommended a differentiation solution -- that registrants be required to identify as a Registrant Type, with Legal Person and Natural Person among the options.  It also required that a mandatory Business PBC be published for “Registrants that self-identify as Legal Persons engaged in commercial activity"  (pages 42-44 of final report).
This option _was_ discussed and discarded in Phase 1. It was noted that to the vast majority of ordinary people the distinction between legal and natural has no meaning, and that there would be liability consequences if there were incorrect identification (see above). And besides, the recommendation of the EWG was made prior to GDPR and has no bearing on EPDP.

  1.  ICANN’s Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law was reviewed by the GNSO and revised in mid-2017.  A goal of the Procedure was “to resolve the problem in a manner that preserves the ability of the registrar/registry to comply with its [current] contractual WHOIS obligations to the greatest extent possible”.  So -- to publish as much data as possible as allowed by law.
 Now you are way off base. Contractual Whois obligations in 2017 were not compliant with GDPR. The Conflicts with Privacy Law procedure is completely irrelevant to our proceedings.

  1.  Under that Procedure, about the only precedent was the .TEL case, which addressed concerns raised by UK privacy law. In that case, the WHOIS service was made to differentiate between natural and legal persons.  Some public WHOIS data was limited for natural persons who had elected to withhold their personal information from disclosure by the WHOIS service, records for Legal Persons had to return full and complete WHOIS data (including applicable personal data), and Legal Persons were not permitted to opt out of disclosing such information. The GDPR is definitely a different law and may yield a different policy.  But the .TEL case did show that it’s possible to tell the difference between a natural person’s data and a legal person’s data, and to control where that data appears.
 Same comment as above.
<Consumer_Protection_Use_Case_ALAC - Online buyers_Update_2.docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190828/ef2c9839/attachment-0001.html>