[Gnso-epdp-team] Recommendation on privacy/proxy data.

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Feb 4 14:10:20 UTC 2019

Actually, I believe that the threshold is that the identifying data is "reasonably available".  Not necessarily within the same data set.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2019-02-04 09:00, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi wrote:
Alan, if you are unable to attribute a pseudonym email address to a specific data subject using other information provided within the same data set then the pseudonymized email address is not considered personal data. So as long as the other information provided along with the pseudonymized email addresses cannot lead to identifying the data subject and  the processor puts technical and organizational measures that ensure the additional relevant information that could tie the pseudonym email address to the data subject is kept separate  then there is no problem in providing the pseudonymized email address. I refer you to the ICO website where you will find examples for good practices relating to this matter under GDPR.


Eng. Hadia Elminiawi (M.Sc.)
Director, DNS-Entrepreneurship Center
[Description: Description: Description: Description:                Description: Description: Description: Description:                Description: Description: Description: Description:                Description: Description:  https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/268513_180152888707645_7698168_n.jpg][logo]

National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority
Tel:      +202 3534  4392
Fax:      +202 3537 4000
Email: hadia at tra.gov.eg<https://mail.dnsec.eg/owa/redir.aspx?C=8f4aa197b9f840be8139d76b29a0df99&URL=mailto%3ahadia%40tra.gov.eg>

From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2019 8:29 PM
To: Alan Woods
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Recommendation on privacy/proxy data.

Alan, please consider an alternate interpretation of recital 26.  This is the way we interpret it at Microsoft, and our regulatory contacts are supportive of it.

I have always been puzzled by interpretations of recital 26 which imply that a processor’s use of personal data is somehow constrained by the unrelated processing of a different processor, even if it’s not the same data.

My lawyer says, “The additional information contemplated in this description [in recital 26] refers to additional information presented in conjunction with the email address; not just if someone had additional information that the effort to limit identifiability could be broken. There are ways for the pseudonymized email to stand alone, and for users to be directed to use business and not personal addresses or other personal information that would increase identifiability. “

I have paraphrased this as:

“If a processor were to publish or disclose multiple personal data, one of which was a pseudonym, and if that collection of data could be used to render the pseudonym identifiable, then the pseudonym would be considered to be personal data.  However, if the processor were to publish a pseudonym, and a third party were to subsequently locate additional data, available from different processors or even from the same processor in a different context, and were then able to use these separate data to unmask the pseudonym and render it identifiable, such third party correlation ability would NOT require the processor to treat the pseudonym as personal data.”


From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alex Deacon
Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2019 11:57 AM
To: Alan Woods <alan at donuts.email><mailto:alan at donuts.email>
Cc: EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Recommendation on privacy/proxy data.

Thanks Alan.  As always I appreciate your input and views.  A few thoughts and questions on your proposed solution.

First, given all of the "MAYs" in your suggested update, it is not clear to me how this will be translated in the implementation phase.  Specifically it is a no-op from a compliance point of view.   I understand this may be the main reason for your update, but we end up with a Recommendation with little value.

Second, given the general agreement that we avoid "squishy" language in our purposes and recommendations, the language you propose is unclear (to me at least).  If a Registrar or Registry decides to not return P/P data or the "existing p/p pseudonymized email” does that mean no email address will be available in a public response?  If so that seems to go against our existing Contractibility purpose (Purpose 3).  (Alan G made this point I believe.)    Or does this language assume that there will be  a Registrar pseudonymized email that points to a P/P pseudonymized email?    Both seem problematic.

Third, regarding the language you point out in Recital 26 of the GDPR, its not clear to me it applies in the privacy/proxy context, where the only the psuedonymized email could be seen as personal.   Perhaps this would be a good question to pose to Ruth.   From what I understand if a processor were to publish or disclose multiple personal data, one of which was a pseudonym, and if that collection of data could be used to render the pseudonym identifiable, then the pseudonym would be considered to be personal data.   For responses that only included P/P data this wouldn't be the case.

Fourth, I appreciate your concern that it may not be possible to figure out a P/P provider  and suggest we can use the language in the RAA (Section 2) to be more specific here - essentially limit it (for now) to affiliated services.     e.g. “For any Proxy Service or Privacy Service offered by the Registrar or its Affiliates, including any of Registrar's or its Affiliates' P/P services distributed through Resellers, and used in connection with Registered Names Sponsored by the Registrar,".   In the future, and once the PPIRT completes, all accredited P/P services will be flagged in RDS/WHOIS (PPSAI Recommendation 4) so this issue will be solved.

Finally, I continue to believe we can find a pragmatic solution where we eliminate (or perhaps minimize) the situation where P/P data is returned in response to a "reasonable disclosure" request.    It is a very inefficient use of time/cycles for both the requestor and person responsible for manually processing these requests.   This was the main reason for the Temp Spec language and this new Recommendation.   If we can't address this issue in this new Rec then perhaps language needs to be added to Rec 12 to address this case....

Apologies for the long email.


Alex Deacon
Cole Valley Consulting
alex at colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex at colevalleyconsulting.com>

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 4:47 AM Alan Woods <alan at donuts.email<mailto:alan at donuts.email>> wrote:
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 Subject.

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.

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 (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.

Kind regards,


Alan Woods<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc. <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>

The Victorians, <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
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.<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:57 AM Alex Deacon <alex at colevalleyconsulting.com> wrote:<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
All, <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
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 - <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
Recommendation XX<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
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 email.<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
There are two reasons why this is useful, IMO.  <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
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.  <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
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.  <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
Happy to discuss further on a future call.  <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
Thanks. <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>

Alex Deacon<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
Cole Valley Consulting<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
alex at colevalleyconsulting.com<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ccd7ec2e952744fc76eb608d68948bdc7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636847342852603079&sdata=QwaxAMupO7ehwbSmN9I%2FFKwgNNr%2FP0th2kuQW6EHb9U%3D&reserved=0>
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org

Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190204/a97f7c72/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1143 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190204/a97f7c72/image002-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4168 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190204/a97f7c72/image004-0001.png>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list