[Gnso-epdp-team] Recommendation on privacy/proxy data.
alan at donuts.email
Fri Feb 1 12:46:16 UTC 2019
Thank you Alex for reopening this matter.
>From a practicality POV the inclusion of a pseudonymised email in a
publication is a disclosure of public data, as a pseudonymised email, is
still an email for a data subject. It may be in a form the data subject
does not recognize, but I believe a number of excellent and practical
examples, such as auto-relay / auto out of office responses could easily
identify the non-pseudonymised email and lead to identification of the Data
I refer you recital 26 of the GDPR:
"…Personal data which have undergone pseudonymisation, which could be
attributed to a natural person by the use of additional information should
be considered to be information on an identifiable natural person..."
Alas the recommendation as worded, although I understand the practicality
that is driving it, does not properly address data protection concerns.
There is a lot of back and of forth possible on whether pseudonymisation
may count as anonymization when published to a 3rd party, however in the
context of Domain Names, where the domain name, and even the associated
content, could be capable of linking the individual to the pseudonymised
data (which is completely outside of outside of our control, but still
relevant to our risk assessment), we need to tread carefully; more
carefully than the ePDP has either the time or the scope to consider.
To refer again to our goal : We must look to the state of the data that is
in the RDDS currently, and whether the publication of individual data
currently used would be data protection compliant or not. In its current
state, with the myriad the uncertainties, it is not, therefore our
recommendation must be *not* to publish.
Allow the registrar / registry to consider (as Controller) the feasibility
and the risk as it applies to them? Unless we, at this late stage, the ePDP
can provide an actual means or suggestion as to implementation of how a
registrar / registry can effectively figure out who is a P&P provider and
thus publish those only details without an increase to risk, then our
choice is plain.
If the recommendation is to stand, use of MAY, and other permissive
language, as opposed to a 'must' will allow each CP to assess the risk as
they see it, as it all comes down to the fact that the ePDP cannot force
the CPs to assume higher risk to appease some.
*In the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service
used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked),
Registrar (and Registry where applicable) MAY include in the public WHOIS
and return in response to any query full WHOIS data, which may also include
the existing privacy/proxy pseudonymized email.*
[image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains>
Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc.
15-18 Earlsfort Terrace
Dublin 2, County Dublin
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts
Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than
the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to
this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:57 AM Alex Deacon <alex at colevalleyconsulting.com>
> Our review of ICANN's input on Temp Spec topics that were not covered by
> the Initial Report reminded me that we had at one point discussed ensuring
> that the current Temp Spec language on how Privacy/Proxy data should be
> handled (Appendix A 2.6) should added as a recommendation. Something
> along the lines of -
> Recommendation XX
> In the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service
> used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked),
> Registrar MUST include in the public WHOIS and return in response to any
> query full WHOIS data, including the existing privacy/proxy pseudonymized
> There are two reasons why this is useful, IMO.
> First, given the time and effort needed to properly process "reasonable
> disclosure" requests by Registrars it seems useful to avoid a situation
> where non-public data is quickly found to be P/P service data. Avoiding
> this situation and simply including P/P data in the the initial response
> would make life better for all involved.
> Second, there is no need to redact information that is already "redacted"
> (by definition) by the P/P service. Also, given P/P services list the
> information of a legal person (in the case of a registrar affiliated
> service provider) in the place of the RNH's info it seems further redaction
> is unnecessary.
> Happy to discuss further on a future call.
> *Alex Deacon*
> Cole Valley Consulting
> alex at colevalleyconsulting.com
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team