[Gnso-epdp-team] Partial draft re SSAC position on natural/legal discussion

[Steve Crocker]

Folks,

My work schedule has suffered one of life's inescapable interruptions.  In
this case, it's good: our granddaughter entered the world this past
Saturday.  My wife and I have been in San Francisco providing support.
Everyone is well, but I'm behind on my participation in this working group.

Attached is my partial draft of a composite treatment of the natural vs
legal collection of issues.  I started writing from front to back but
haven't had time to finish.  I added a section at the end with the
conclusions and recommendations.  I will fill in the missing pieces as
quickly as I can.

Despite the incompleteness, we did have an opportunity in the SSAC work
party to review and agree on the recommendations.

For ease of access, the recommendations are copied below.

Thanks,

Steve

1.
*Inescapable Requirement: Definition of Roles *
Each role must be defined in terms of the authority and responsibilities
associated with the role.  This definition must be explicitly available to
both the people fulfilling the role and the people interacting with the
people in those roles.  Each person named in a role must be aware of being
named and must agree to the obligations associated with the role.

The definition must also include an explicit statement of how the
information about the person in the role will be disseminated.

Information about the registrant is provided by the Account Holder.  The
Account Holder is effectively an agent of the Registrant and is the only
authoritative source of information about the status of the registrant.

2.
*Recommendation: Unknown Persons *
In addition to definite status of Natural Person or Legal Person, the
status of Unknown should be included in the design of the system.

3.
*Recommendation: Additional Protection *
In addition to whether the registrant is a Natural, Legal or Unknown
Person, the status should also include an additional attribute regarding
whether the registrant requires special privacy protection.

It is an open question as to whether additional privacy protection should
be available to any registrant who wishes it or should require
justification.  At the very least, to facilitate visibility into
potentially harmful behaviors, Registrars should avoid unnecessary
protection of registration data.

4.
*Recommendation: Downgrading *
Registrants should have the option of “downgrading” the level of protection
for some or all of their data elements.

Registrars should have the option of implementing downgrading on a field by
field basis or in groups of fields.

ICANN should establish a date certain for registrars to implement
registrant option to downgrade the sensitivity of their registrations.

5.
*Comment: Recourse *
 If a person named in any role in a registration feels the data is
incorrect or is being disseminated improperly, they have recourse via the
Registrant.  Failing that, they have recourse through ICANN’s compliance
process.  No additional processes are required.

6.
*Recommendation: Org Field *
The Org field should *not* be used to determine the registrant’s status.
The Registrar should require Legal Persons to provide the Org data
element.  The Registrar should permit Natural or Unknown registrants to
provide or not provide the Org data element.

7.
*Recommendation: Transition *
ICANN should establish a plan for transitioning Unknown registrations into
known status.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20210414/36d3be5d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SSAC re Legal vs Natural 2021-04-14.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 64915 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20210414/36d3be5d/SSACreLegalvsNatural2021-04-14-0001.docx>