[Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance

Mon Apr 12 15:07:30 UTC 2021

Hi Volker,

Thank you for your comments. I thought we had clarified these points during the EPDP discussions but seeing your latest reactions on the guidance doc, I would like to add a few – hopefully – helpful clarifications.

It is very positive to see that the NIS2 Proposal is taken into account; please note that NIS2 Proposal imposes two separate obligations:

-          providing access to specific domain name registration data upon lawful and duly justified requests of legitimate access seekers (this would mean disclosure via the SSAD and could entail both personal and non-personal data)

-          publication, without undue delay after the registration of a domain name, of domain registration data of legal persons which are not personal data (see recital 62 and article 23 (4)). This does not relate to SSAD – the publication requirement is a separate one and concerns providing data in the publicly accessible Registration Data Directory Services.

It is hard to see how your vision, as currently phrased in your email below, meets any of these two requirements.

Regarding your other point, I believe that it does matter to whom the data belongs. Data of natural persons are personal data and therefore should always be protected by default (unless there is consent) and data of legal persons are not protected, so in principle they should be disclosed (unless they contain personal data in which case you may decide to further distinguish and publish only the non-personal data of the legal persons – as also required by the NIS2 Proposal).

Hope this helps. Happy to discuss further.

Best,
Melina

From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 4:22 PM
To: STROUNGI Melina (CNECT) <Melina.STROUNGI at ec.europa.eu>
Cc: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance

Hi Melina,

if we differentiated between personal and non-personal data only, it would not matter whom the data belonged to, e.g. a legal person record that contains personal information would be treated as the default: Do not publish.

My vision is that the differentiation would only make a difference in the handling of that data within SSAD where interested parties would be granted quick access to such non-personal data, as required by NIS2.

--
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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.key-systems.net/__;!!DOxrgLBm!S4qH_9yVum0x39KcAPU39X1TMMihgXMy-hSb7xObqmhFvANUMMPXI3VHvYWHCiYE40qLD3GD$>

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.

This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached.

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 1:19 PM STROUNGI Melina <Melina.STROUNGI at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Melina.STROUNGI at ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

Setting aside various points raised below which are not correct, for the benefit of continuation of a constructive discussion I would like to raise some clarification questions to which written input would be very much appreciated.

@Volker:

1)      I am confused. I understand you and Sarah propose to have a distinction between personal and non-personal data, correct? Yet, below you suggest ‘protecting all data equally’ and that ‘you do not need to differentiate’. So in conclusion what are you proposing? Should you differentiate between personal and non-personal data or you should not differentiate at all (which would mean that you publish zero information)?

2)      In case yours and Sarah’s proposal to distinguish only between personal and non-personal data is still valid:
i. Would you consider making such distinction a requirement or still voluntary?

ii. How exactly would you envisage doing such a distinction in practice? Would you for instance ask the registrants to specify which data are personal or not? Would you have a dedicated team checking manually all data? Any other way?

Thanks for clarifying these points as it would be very useful in view of our today’s EDPP plenary meeting.

Best,
Melina

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann via Gnso-epdp-team
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:07 PM
To: King, Brian <Brian.King at markmonitor.com<mailto:Brian.King at markmonitor.com>>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance

Hi Brian,

That approach is actually very compliant  with data protection law. Overprotection is not an issue. If you simply protect all data equally in a way that would be compliant, you do not need to differentiate.

Accuracy is shown by demonstrating that the data is unchanged from the time it was created and how it was created, by showing that the data subject has contractually agreed to only provide accurate data (and correct if outdated), and has been provided with an annual opportunity to review the data. That is the level accuracy that is relevant under the accuracy principle of the GDPR, after all.

On top of that (Bonus round for extra points here) the data collection process ensured that only properly formatted data was collected and the registrant has been required to verify his email address.

So reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy have been taken, the data subject can request a correction at any time and we will take action on any indication of inaccuracy of the data.

But the real problem isn't actually inaccurate data, in our experience. It is accurate data of the wrong data subject.

--
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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.key-systems.net/__;!!DOxrgLBm!TNAiZf3EyheqvXxgQ3E8rqWa-Dt70SexlB2mim32VULbMMjhxTpKlwqpqS_s7mXWQO0zZyZM$>

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.

This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached.

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 9:48 PM King, Brian <Brian.King at markmonitor.com<mailto:Brian.King at markmonitor.com>> wrote:
Hey Volker,

I suppose my point (and I think I’m also paraphrasing an intervention made by Melina previously) is that approach is not likely to be compliant with data protection law.

I accept that the concept of accuracy as a policy matter is not within our remit, but let’s use accuracy as a data protection principle – how could a controller reasonably demonstrate to a DPA that the controller’s data is accurate, for example, if the controller has not even assessed whether the data is personal data?

Brian J. King
He/Him/His
Head of Policy and Advocacy, Intellectual Property Group

T +1 443 761 3726
Time zone: US Eastern Time

clarivate.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.clarivate.com__;!!DOxrgLBm!TNAiZf3EyheqvXxgQ3E8rqWa-Dt70SexlB2mim32VULbMMjhxTpKlwqpqS_s7mXWQCW5YUXp$> | Accelerating innovation
Follow us on LinkedIn<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.linkedin.com/company/clarivate__;!!DOxrgLBm!TNAiZf3EyheqvXxgQ3E8rqWa-Dt70SexlB2mim32VULbMMjhxTpKlwqpqS_s7mXWQCvxAWKN$>, Twitter<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/clarivate?ref_src=twsrc*5Egoogle*7Ctwcamp*5Eserp*7Ctwgr*5Eauthor__;JSUlJSU!!DOxrgLBm!TNAiZf3EyheqvXxgQ3E8rqWa-Dt70SexlB2mim32VULbMMjhxTpKlwqpqS_s7mXWQD240Aw8$>, Facebook<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/clarivate/__;!!DOxrgLBm!TNAiZf3EyheqvXxgQ3E8rqWa-Dt70SexlB2mim32VULbMMjhxTpKlwqpqS_s7mXWQE3OR2v4$> and Instagram<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.instagram.com/clarivateofficial/?hl=en__;!!DOxrgLBm!TNAiZf3EyheqvXxgQ3E8rqWa-Dt70SexlB2mim32VULbMMjhxTpKlwqpqS_s7mXWQJ4vFbZ1$>

From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 3:58 PM
To: King, Brian <Brian.King at markmonitor.com<mailto:Brian.King at markmonitor.com>>
Cc: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance

Hi Brian,

the easiest way to comply with data protection law is to simply treat all registration data as if it were personal data. No chance of ever running afoul data protection law if you do that correctly and it is pretty easy to demonstrate as well.

--
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net_&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=qD32H8OIbs1z3Y2bdkOzGc3mUHIMW_Xp_6ZhFqwuQa8&s=yN8BHspGj3eYe2CXQepAVOhufF1uWv8Ut-PpDdaFw-k&e=>

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.

This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached.

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:47 PM King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Milton,

Thank you for the constructive intervention. Your point is well taken, and I can certainly see that from the RNH perspective.

One feature of data protection law related to your point is that it requires data controllers and processors to be able to demonstrate compliance with the law. A controller or processor could doubtfully demonstrate compliance with data protection law if they had not determined whether they were actually processing personal data. In fact, data protection professionals will tell you that you absolutely must determine what personal data you’re processing as the first step toward compliance with data protection law. It seems the policy question is: what, if anything, should contracted parties be required to do based on the status of the data? Is that right?

As always, we’re happy to work with you and look forward to finding consensus.

Brian J. King
He/Him/His
Head of Policy and Advocacy, Intellectual Property Group

T +1 443 761 3726
Time zone: US Eastern Time

clarivate.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.clarivate.com__;!!DOxrgLBm!TNAiZf3EyheqvXxgQ3E8rqWa-Dt70SexlB2mim32VULbMMjhxTpKlwqpqS_s7mXWQCW5YUXp$> | Accelerating innovation
Follow us on LinkedIn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_clarivate&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=qD32H8OIbs1z3Y2bdkOzGc3mUHIMW_Xp_6ZhFqwuQa8&s=bTH9-uZa1ulAV7ltM77Kkw6zYbSjQTDRiIhZ5aILoQA&e=>, Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_clarivate-3Fref-5Fsrc-3Dtwsrc-255Egoogle-257Ctwcamp-255Eserp-257Ctwgr-255Eauthor&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=qD32H8OIbs1z3Y2bdkOzGc3mUHIMW_Xp_6ZhFqwuQa8&s=saAKJDKaijH6v2xkw6R0-WBownX8UIKXMN5zKsYPT58&e=>, Facebook<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_clarivate_&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=qD32H8OIbs1z3Y2bdkOzGc3mUHIMW_Xp_6ZhFqwuQa8&s=guRk82NQpoUPMKHhfkk8hBOD7LbP-ZT0VnzGOCoIzBI&e=> and Instagram<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_clarivateofficial_-3Fhl-3Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=qD32H8OIbs1z3Y2bdkOzGc3mUHIMW_Xp_6ZhFqwuQa8&s=ZZCjD7Z4CkwSecYOp5AXLrFBuQ3VgvD5E7kSFZsW9L4&e=>

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L via Gnso-epdp-team
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 11:13 AM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance

I was reading through two documents setting out in detail the proposed guidance on legal/natural.
There seems to be more than one Google doc on this and I am not sure which one is the latest or most official, though I suspect it is the one with various people’s comments crawling all over it.

I was pretty supportive of the Guidance overall. I had one problem with it, though.
I liked the description of HOW the differentiation needed to take place. But in describing WHEN differentiation takes place and WHO would do it, it sets out 3 “high level scenarios”.
The first two are ok. The third scenario (listed as #5 in the document) is that the Registrar does it for the RNH, based on “inferences.”

That option just doesn’t fly for those of us representing RNH’s in this process. We cannot have a registrant’s disclosure status or person type determined FOR them by someone else. If we can strike that part of the guidance, I think we can be on our way to a much broader consensus.

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Public Policy
[IGP_logo_gold block]

Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=qD32H8OIbs1z3Y2bdkOzGc3mUHIMW_Xp_6ZhFqwuQa8&s=KB-Bo9xYcTsaV-lrfJIsfRxB7i_yekkMNRTbi8IUx2s&e=>
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=qD32H8OIbs1z3Y2bdkOzGc3mUHIMW_Xp_6ZhFqwuQa8&s=KI3v50SXH9pcgbjslcb50spSZuwJHRD7_CnwSf_bcXc&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=qD32H8OIbs1z3Y2bdkOzGc3mUHIMW_Xp_6ZhFqwuQa8&s=Pe4S6hYEUMqw6Eq9DWqbMeaOGnw2zVXTDobhF5xUuY0&e=>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20210412/18e46393/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11497 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20210412/18e46393/image001-0001.png>