[Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] RE: For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach

Thu May 9 15:04:20 UTC 2019

Obviously, according to the European Court of Justice, all information 
that in combination with other pieces of information could lead to the 
identification of the data subject is also personal information, so that 
differentiation is moot. (See: IP-Addresses in Case 582/14 – Patrick 
Breyer v Germany 
<http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=184668&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1116945>)

The only scenario where nonpublic information is not public information 
is when the data cannot lead to the identification of the data subject, 
but that cannot usually be seen on its face. For example the commonly 
used role "Domain Manager" could be personal information if someone on 
that company website is listed as such, the company only has one staff 
member in that role or other factors and data sources allow the 
identification or the ability to build a personal profile.

So yes, even legal entities may have used data in their registation data 
sets that can be considered personal information, which is why 
contracted parties have argued for no differentiation between entity 
types. Ultimately, the type is irrelevant, the data used is relevant.

Best,

Volker

Am 09.05.2019 um 16:24 schrieb Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I would not use the term " disclosure/access to personal information" 
> but would rather use the term " disclosure/access to nonpublic 
> registration data". The reason for this is that by definition, some of 
> the redacted data is not personal information, but was redacted 
> because it was thought that in combination with other pieces of 
> information it could lead to identifying the data subject.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Hadia
>
> *From:*Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 08, 2019 11:39 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] RE: For your review - Phase 2 
> Draft Approach
>
> Apologies, it looks like the pdf conversion got rid of the ticks. 
> We’ve replaced them with ‘X’ in the attached version.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
> *From: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 15:35
> *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, 
> "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach
>
> Hi,
>
> Looks like Janis and staff have been busy!
>
> I have a question about Slide 7. There are no “X’s” or ticks in the 
> columns for WS 1 and WS 2.
>
> So I can’t tell what this means. Are we proposing (I hope) that WS1 
> meets on Tuesdays and WS2 meets on Thursdays? Or is this still open-ended?
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of 
> *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2019 2:07 PM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach
>
> /Sending on behalf of Janis Karklins/
>
> Dear EPDP Team,
>
> Following last week’s meeting, the leadership team and staff support 
> have worked together on developing a draft approach for tackling phase 
> 2. We hope this strikes a balance between the different views 
> expressed and will form the basis for a detailed work plan with 
> concrete milestones and deliverables. You will find attached a couple 
> of slides that outline our current thinking in further detail, but 
> here are some points I want to emphasize:
>
>   * This is a draft approach for discussion and review. Based on your
>     input prior and our discussion during next week’s meeting, we will
>     further iterate and detail our approach, the proposed work plan
>     and accompanying timeline. This draft is for discussion that,
>     hopefully, will lead to a consensual agreement.
>   * For the purpose of our exercise it is important to use definitions
>     and terminology with the same understanding. We propose to develop
>     and use working definitions without prejudice  to consensual
>     outcome. Final definitions can only be developed once the Team has
>     finalized its work and agreed on its recommendations.
>   * Based on the Team’s feedback in relation to the request to form a
>     small team to engage with ICANN Org, I suggest to keep a plenary
>     setting which will avoid creating a separate structure and ensure
>     that everyone is part of discussion. Nevertheless, as this work on
>     obtaining legal certainty is ongoing, I would propose that we deal
>     with the charter questions and list of issues identified on slide
>     5 in an agnostic manner.  In other words, we should refrain at the
>     outset to deliberate on whether or not a System for Standardized
>     Disclosure should be centralized or not, but rather we should
>     focus on the commonalities and where needed identify that
>     differentiation may be required depending on which model is
>     ultimately determined to be legally compliant with GDPR and
>     workable. I also expect that this approach would help inform the
>     engagement of ICANN org and DPAs.
>   * I appreciate that some of you may consider the timeline ambitious,
>     but I’ve heard from almost everyone that the work on a System for
>     Standardized Disclosure is a priority and as such I am committed
>     to setting a target date for us to work towards. This will require
>     your support and dedication. I am pretty confident I can count on
>     that.
>
> I look forward to receiving your feedback and would like to encourage 
> you to focus your input on what, why and how things could or should be 
> done differently, instead of simply saying that something cannot be 
> acceptable or should not be done.
>
> Janis Karklins
>
> */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
-- 
Volker A. Greimann
General Counsel and Policy Manager
*KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*

T: +49 6894 9396901
M: +49 6894 9396851
F: +49 6894 9396851
W: www.key-systems.net

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of 
Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in 
England and Wales with company number 8576358.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190509/10bf51ae/attachment-0001.html>