[Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - Proposed language for agreements reached in principle
Sarah Wyld
swyld at tucows.com
Tue Jan 22 13:36:16 UTC 2019
Good morning,
I notice a significant difference between the Toronto Day 3 notes and
the draft below, regarding the Organization field.
Day 3 notes - "Principles for Redaction of Registrant Organization
Field" #4:
4. Upon (1) the registration of a Registered Name sponsored by
Registrar or (2) the transfer of the sponsorship of a Registered
Name to Registrar, the Registrar MUST inform all Registered Name
Holders that the*Registrant Org field will be redacted unless the
Registered Name Holder affirmatively opts in to the publicatio**n*
of the Registrant Org field.
Updated Recommendation #9 below:
4. Upon (1) the registration of a Registered Name sponsored by
Registrar or (2) the transfer of the sponsorship of a Registered
Name to Registrar, the Registrar MUST inform the Registered Name
Holder that the*Registrant Org field will be published unless the
Registered Name Holder affirmatively opts in to redaction *of the
Registrant Org field.
The Org field should be redacted by default, and the Registered Name
Holder should be able to opt-in to publication. This aligns with the
principle of Privacy by Default and is what we agreed on during the Day
3 meeting.
Thanks,
--
Sarah Wyld
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
On 1/22/2019 12:33 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
>
> Dear EPDP Team,
>
>
>
> In Toronto, we reached agreement in principle on several issues but
> did not have time to develop language to which the team agreed. To
> move that discussion forward, the support team has developed the
> proposed language below for discussion and inclusion in the Final
> Report. Please review this language with your group to ensure it
> aligns with the agreement that was reached. If you are of the view
> that it does not conform to the agreement, please:
>
>
>
> 1. Respond to this message and change the subject line to the topic
> of the recommendation about which you have concerns;
> 2. Outline your concerns, focusing on how the proposed language does
> not reflect the principle agreement reached, and;
> 3. Propose edits that would address your concerns that are in line
> with the agreement reached.
>
>
>
> The deadline for doing so is *Thursday 25 January* so that there is
> sufficient time to review and discuss any concerns. If no concerns are
> raised, this language will be incorporated into the draft Final Report
> for your review.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
>
>
> =========
>
>
>
> Based on the discussions during the F2F meeting in Toronto, the
> following updated language is provided for EPDP Team review on the
> following topics / recommendations:
>
>
>
> 1. *Natural vs. legal*
>
>
>
> *Draft recommendation*
>
> 1) The EPDP Team recommends that the policy recommendations in
> this Final Report apply to all gTLD registrations, without requiring
> Registrars to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural
> persons, although registrars are permitted to make this distinction.
>
> 2) The EPDP Team recommends that as soon as possible ICANN Org
> undertakes a study, for which the terms of reference are developed in
> consultation with the community, that considers:
>
> * The feasibility and costs of distinguishing between legal and
> natural persons;
> * Taking into account examples of industries or other
> organizations where this has been successfully done;
> * Consider privacy risks to registrants, and;
> * Consider the risks of not differentiating.
>
> 3) Depending on the timing of the research, whether to inform the
> scope or make use of its findings, the EPDP team will discuss the
> Legal vs Natural issue in Phase 2.
>
> 2. *Consent to publish additional contact information*
>
>
>
> *Agreement in principle:*In its discussion on consent, the Temporary
> Specification omitted RNH email as a piece of information to which the
> registrant could consent to publication. This draft recommendation
> corrects that omission.
>
> * *
>
> *Draft recommendation*
>
> The EPDP Team recommends that, as soon as commercially reasonable,
> Registrar must provide the opportunity for the Registered Name Holder
> to provide its Consent to publish additional contact information.
>
>
>
> 3. *Organization Field*
>
>
>
> *Agreement in principle:*Rather than requiring the publication or
> redaction of the Organization Field, a phased approach was suggested
> by Team Members that gained general agreement.
>
>
>
> *Updated Recommendation #9 *
>
> 1. The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars MAY begin
> redacting the Registrant Org field immediately.
>
> 2. For existing registrants: the EPDP Team recommends
> that Registrars MUST notify all existing Registered Name Holders that
> the Registrant Org field will be treated as non-personal data for new
> registrants beginning on [x date - to be agreed upon during the
> implementation of this Policy], and accordingly, the field will
> be published for new registrants in the freely-accessible directory
> beginning on [x date]. However, if existing Registered Name Holders
> wish to have its Organization field published within the
> freely-accessible database, it must affirmatively consent to the
> publication by opting in. If the Registered Name Holder affirmatively
> opts in to the publication of its existing (or modified) Registrant
> Organization, the Registrar may publish the Registrant Organization
> Field immediately and/or on the agreed-upon [x] date.
>
> 3. The EPDP Team recommends if the existing Registered
> Name Holder does not affirmatively opt in to the publication of its
> Registrant Organization field, the Registrar will show
> the existing Registrant Organization Field but the field MAY be left
> blank.
>
> 4. Upon (1) the registration of a Registered Name
> sponsored by Registrar or (2) the transfer of the sponsorship of a
> Registered Name to Registrar, the Registrar MUST inform the Registered
> Name Holder that the Registrant Org field will be published unless the
> Registered Name Holder affirmatively opts in to redaction of the
> Registrant Org field.
>
>
>
> 4. *Deferring consideration of new proposed purposes to phase 2*
>
>
>
> *Agreement in principle: *With regards to proposed Purpose O, the
> Purpose supporting ARS, and the additional purposes received through
> public comment, the EPDP Team understands some legal clarification is
> required as to whether those purposes can fall under existing
> Purposes. Additional complexities were introduced. Therefore, the Team
> decided to put off this discussion for Phase 2 where the EPDP Charter
> makes it clear that additional Purposes are, in fact, anticipated.**
>
> * *
>
> *Draft recommendation*
>
> The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether
> additional purposes should be considered to facilitate research
> carried out by ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO)
> as well as the continuation of the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System
> (ARS). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on
> if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org.
>
>
>
> */Marika Konings/*
>
> /Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) /
>
> /Email: marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> /
>
> / /
>
> /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/
>
> /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=Cg5uQf0yAfw-qlFZ0WNBfsLmmtBNUiH0SuI6Vg-gXBQ&e=> and
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=tT-E2RoAucUb3pfL9zmlbRdq1sytaEf765KOEkBVCjk&e=>. /
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190122/f3513651/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190122/f3513651/signature-0001.asc>
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team
mailing list