[Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Sun Apr 18 01:04:08 UTC 2021
I think you both make good points. Our starting point is the current status
quo, which I expect will continue on into the far future: All registration
data provided as a registrant must be viewed as potential personal
information, in a Schroedingers Cat kind-of situation. Until you look at
it, you do not know what it is, even though you can make certain
assumptions with varying likelihoods. The 2B memo tells us nothing new in
that regard.
What it does tell us is that the various methods of determination without
looking have risk of various degrees attached.
Miltons proposed registrant-declaration is one of the lower risk ones
methods. Stephanie is also right that in a highly competitive market with
razor-thin margins, corners will be cut at some point of the channel,
especially once you enter the realm of resellers. So Stephanie is
absolutely correct in her point that the determination of whether
contracted parties can rely on the accuracy of any declaration must be that
of the contracted party itself. The declaration of legal status of the
registrant ultimately does not help us make that determination. The
declaration of content of the data goes a whole lot further in that
regard. Controlling the process where the declaration is made helps even
more (hence the requirement to allow post-registration declarations).
As for publication vs. disclosure, after having given this some thought, I
still tend to come out on the side of disclosure, but with the following
features:
- self-declared data sets would be set to automated disclosure.
- public RDAP could contain a marker/flag/label/something that shows that
this data set is available for automated disclosure in SSAD
- Disclosure fees for such data sets in SSAD could be priced lower than
non-automated data sets, say half-price
- Access levels for access to such data sets could be lower for users of
SSAD. For example, if you just want to access automated-disclosure sets,
accreditation could be voluntary, and a mere ID-check application process
and a statement of legitimate interest for each request could be possible.
Advantages:
- Increased utility of SSAD
- SSAD User Fees would decrease (higher query volumes overall, lower fees
for some queries)
- CP Risk would be limited
- CP handling times for requests would be reduced in case they implement
that flag.
I still need to hear what the benefits of the differentiation of data sets
and better availability of non-personal information really are, though. In
my experience it is not like cyber criminals are setting up legal entities
such as STEALATRADEMARK, Inc or VIOLATEACOPYRIGHT, Ltd. left and right to
register their domain names. Those kinds of domains are usually registered
with perfectly accurate personal data sets. If someone could really make
the case of what the perceived benefit to all parties concerned is on this
(something I have been asking for from days 1), I'd be happy to hear them.
The common argument of security, stability and resilience of the DNS went
out of the window the day the Temp Spec first came into effect after all,
as neither of the three has been affected by the current vegetative state
of the WHOIS (In the sense that it is not quite dead yet, but almost.
Machines still keep it alive).
This also would solve the issue of thick vs thin RDAP:
If RDAP only returns the basic data set anyway and never any personal
information, there is no longer any need to require registrars to provide
RDAP services as there no longer is any concern in supplying said data to
the registries for centralised publication. Thick RDAP would be saved.
--
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: 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 Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 12:19 AM Stephanie E Perrin via Gnso-epdp-team <
gnso-epdp-team at icann.org> wrote:
> Bird and Bird is offering arguments for protection in the event of
> complaint. While that protection is welcome and reassuring in terms of
> risk, I am not certain that we have adequately explained to 2Birds how
> registration actually takes place. It would have been beneficial to walk
> them through a range of different ways to register a domain name. As we
> have discussed in the calls, very often non-savvy non-commercial users or
> small business/home workers use resellers of various kinds to register
> their domains. Additional risk creeps in here, WRT whether or not a
> positive consent has been obtained from relevant employees. Further risk
> creeps in when we look at automatic renewals, where the contact data may
> not be updated. If updated, have the steps been taken to get consent from
> new employees? To me this is key, non-savvy users, and I count myself
> among them, are not likely to check what an intermediary is doing with
> respect to the domain renewal or updating.
>
> Now, of course the argument is that they SHOULD be more diligent and they
> SHOULD pay attention to the accuracy requirements, but lets deal in facts
> here.....are they? As the data controller who is pre-emptively disclosing
> personal data, allegedly with consent, to unknown (to the contracted party)
> third parties, the responsibility still rests with the controller. As I
> have mentioned, a Facebook or a Google or a Microsoft can get away with
> treading roughshod over their consent arrangements....not too many folks
> are going to give up free or necessary services over quibbles in a consent
> form, even if it is 75 pages long. However the registrars (and to a lesser
> extent, the registries) are operating in a highly competitive market. Once
> losing my trust, perhaps over a trifling inattention to the accuracy of my
> data, and I am transferring my domains to another company. Policing a
> complex reseller market is also rather a difficult matter that we have not
> discussed at length in our debates on this issue. I know that the data
> commissioners as a group do not understand how the accountability for the
> handling of personal information is transferred in that market, and it
> would not be surprising if 2Birds did not either. Bottom line: accredited
> registrars are shouldering the risk here, it is their risk, and they would
> know best whether they can trust the accuracy of the designation of legal
> personhood. This is why I think that this designation, in my opinion,
> should always permit an override by the contracted parties to treat the
> data as personal. I have suggested many many times that commercial
> organizations should operate on an accreditation basis and be linked to
> their official registration numbers (business, corporation, municipal
> licence etc). Noone ever responds to that idea....if it is totally
> ridiculous I would certainly like to know why, I am offering it in good
> faith and I think it would do something useful to stop fraudulent
> registrations in their names. However, small business and non-commercial
> organizations, even if incorporated or in possession of a registration # of
> some kind have different needs and circumstances, and they are frequently
> treated differently under data protection law.
>
> One final point that I have raised a few times.....we tend to focus on
> enforcement fines and Court costs. Even if noone ever complains to a DPA
> or takes a case to Court, where the advice of 2 Birds gives us some comfort
> that the risk is manageable, and the results would exonerate the contracted
> parties.....what about reputational damage in the meantime? Court costs?
> Who actually wants to have customers complaining about the practices?
> Employee morale, if it is employees who are objecting to the practices?
>
> I support focusing on whether the data submitted is personal or not, with
> a fulsome definition and description of same, and full flexibility for
> contracted parties to err on the side of caution and consider the
> possibility of some data being personal after all. After all, much data
> is still being disclosed, and noone has adduced strong evidence that the
> delay in requesting the data (as opposed to getting it from the published
> data) will have huge repercussions. What is actually at play here is who
> is doing the extra work....the requesting party, or the data controller.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> On 2021-04-15 10:42 p.m., Mueller, Milton L via Gnso-epdp-team wrote:
>
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL:*
>
> Further legal support from TwoBirds
>
>
>
> 14.2 If personal data is erroneously included in published
> Registration Data, it would in this scenario occur despite substantial
> (VSC) steps taken by the Contracted Parties, and would be primarily
> attributable to the actions/omissions of the Registrant. This is likely to
> be taken into account by data subjects, data protection supervisory
> authorities, and courts.
>
> 14.3 The data in question is likely to be low sensitivity. The
> scenario being envisaged here (mistaken inclusion of personal data in
> published Registration Data) seems to be most likely to occur when a legal
> entity (e.g. a company or non-profit organisation) is registering /
> maintaining its own domains. In those scenarios, we assume the personal
> data that could be disclosed would ordinarily relate to an employee’s work
> details (e.g. a company email address), not an individual’s private life.
> Although the GDPR confers protection even in the workplace, the data in
> question here may arguably be less capable of causing harm to an individual
> than data relating to the data subject’s private life.[1]
> <#m_2854865445665285661__ftn1>
>
> 14.4 In more sensitive cases (e.g. disclosing that a person
> works for a company in a sensitive or “embarrassing” sector), a Registrant
> would be putting itself at serious risk of complaints from its own
> employees. Registrants are therefore already incentivised to avoid errors
> that could have serious consequences for their own staff.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2021 10:34 PM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance
>
>
>
> Some legal support for my argument below from Bird & Bird:
>
>
>
> There may even be an argument, based on EU Court of Justice (“CJEU”)
> caselaw, that this is a situation where Contracted Parties should generally
> only be liable should they fail to properly address a complaint about the
> data – i.e. only once they are put on notice about the alleged illegality
> and thereby have an opportunity to “verify” the merits of the complaint.
> [1] <#m_2854865445665285661__ftn2> This bears some parallels to other EU
> liability regimes for operators of services online that process –
> unwittingly – content that violates EU law.[2]
> <#m_2854865445665285661__ftn3> As discussed at footnote 6 below, this is
> arguably recognised in (at least some) decisions of GDPR supervisory
> authorities.
>
>
>
> In other words, if personal data finds its way into a published
> registration record that should not be there, an objection can be lodged
> with the registrar and they can verify the merits and remove the data.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> School of Public Policy
>
> Internet Governance Project <https://internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2021 9:14 PM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance
>
>
>
>
>
> >" Everyone who is named in a role in a registration must have already
> been informed
>
> > and consented to all of the conditions involved in the role. " This is
> the ideal. Sadly, this ideal
>
> > is very often not the case.
>
>
>
> Whoa.
>
>
>
> Of course, Volker, it is possible that a person making a registration for
> a legal person won’t do it properly. But it is absurd to expect a registrar
> to be legally responsible for that. How can the registrar be liable for
> privacy breaches made by the registrant? Indeed, I can’t understand why
> gaining the consent of the administrative assistant of the xyz department
> to have their name listed in the whois is a matter for DNS/ICANN policy at
> all. ICANN policy simply needs to inform registrants that under certain
> conditions the data will be published.
>
>
>
> Let’s take an extreme case – suppose a nasty IT manager in a major
> corporation puts the name, email address and (what the heck) a revenge porn
> photo of her ex-husband in her company’s registration record. Are you
> telling me the registrar would be considered responsible for that breach of
> privacy? Not the nasty IT manager?
>
>
>
> Show me a legal case in which that kind of liability has been assigned. I
> doubt you can, but I await the data from CP lawyers who have been involved
> in these cases. I do know of several cases in which agents for a
> corporation wrongly listed themselves as the technical and administrative
> contact, making it possible for them to hijack the name. The registrar was
> NEVER held liable for that.
>
>
>
> Reminder: We had to reform Whois/RDS policy because ICANN, *as a matter
> of contractual obligation, required registrars to publish sensitive PII of
> any and every Registrant*. Once we have removed that obligation, and once
> we have given registrants knowledge of the conditions under which the data
> in the record should be published, I don’t see why registrars need to worry
> about some corporation listing the personal email address of someone in
> their IT department.
>
>
>
> So if this alleged risk is being cited to scare us away from allowing
> registrants to self-designate as legal or natural, it is a pretty weak
> case, imho.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Volker
> Greimann via Gnso-epdp-team
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2021 10:10 AM
> *To:* Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance
>
>
>
> Employees are named by other employees without their knowledge, or remain
> named long after they leave. From the experience as a registrar dealing
> with registrants every day, this ideal is an assumption that does not
> survive contact with reality.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: 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, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:36 PM Steve Crocker via Gnso-epdp-team <
> gnso-epdp-team at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Laureen,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your note. With respect to the details under legal person, we
> believe the issue of consent should be moot. Everyone who is named in a
> role in a registration must have already been informed and consented to all
> of the conditions involved in the role. This is a prerequisite for having
> a working system and is not specific to meeting a privacy regulation. The
> fact that this requirement is not specified in the existing contractual
> documentation is an error and needs to be rectified.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:28 AM Kapin, Laureen via Gnso-epdp-team <
> gnso-epdp-team at icann.org> wrote:
>
> I think we share common ground on many key issues and I would like to
> build on the many helpful inputs received as to what would be advisable.
>
>
>
> *Goal*: publish non-personal, non-protected data to the greatest extent
> permissible under the GDPR and within low legal risks to data controllers
> and processors. Note, the description below does *not *fully detail the
> advised safeguards which B&B has documented and which we’ve adopted in our
> prior input because my impression is that we generally agree that the
> safeguards are prudent. This description merely seeks to identify the key
> steps that must be taken to ensure that personal data is identified and
> protected and non-personal data is published. I also highlight the
> addition of a potential additional safeguard – Confirmation. I think this
> process incorporates what we’ve discussed and inputs received and could
> form a useful framework for discussion.
>
>
>
> *Note:*
>
>
>
> n *New Registrations: *This process applies to new registrations (Steve
> C. has some useful thoughts on how to deal with existing Registrations)
>
> n *Publish: *When I use the word “publish,” I mean made public directly;
> not via the SSAD.
>
> n *Flexibility: *Based on input from our Registrar colleagues, we should
> permit flexibility for how these steps are implemented to account for the
> varied business models in place.
>
> n *Timing: *All identifications need to take place at the time of
> registration or shortly thereafter (w/in the 13-day accuracy verification
> window) and no registration data should be published until the
> identification, consent, and confirmation process concludes
>
>
>
> *Process:*
>
> 1. A threshold identification of the registrant as a natural or legal
> person;
>
> a. If natural, registration info redacted
>
>
>
> b. If legal, further inquiries and advisories (safeguards):
>
> i. if the legal person
> identifies that it has a protected status under the GDPR
>
> 1. registration info redacted
>
>
>
> ii. If the legal person
> registration contains personal data, advise of consequences (publication)
>
> 1. Obtain necessary consents
>
> 2. *Possible additional safeguard*: *Ask Registrant to Confirm any
> identification that will result in publication of contact data *(akin to
> confirming a flight reservation or stock trade)
>
> a. Publish
>
> 3. If no consent
>
> a. Redact
>
>
>
> 2. Provide quick and easy opportunity to correct any mistakes
>
>
>
> I hope this is useful.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Laureen Kapin
>
> Counsel for International Consumer Protection
>
> Federal Trade Commission
>
> (202) 326-3237
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Volker
> Greimann via Gnso-epdp-team
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2021 8:35 AM
> *To:* Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg>
> *Cc:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance
>
>
>
> I think we need to be cognisant of the current status quo and use that as
> the basis for our thoughts on the matter:
>
>
>
> 1) There is no differentiation between legal or natural contacts.
>
> 2) The redaction of all contacts is permitted and has become the de-facto
> standard.
>
> 3) We allow consent-based disclosure.
>
> 4) NIS 2 may at some point in the future require publication of
> non-personal information.
>
>
>
> This leads to two very simple follow-on questions:
>
> a) How do we identify such non-personal information? What is really
> necessary for this end?
>
> b) What would publication entail?
>
>
>
> For a) we and Twobirds identified voluntary self-declaration of the data
> submitted. As all data is redacted by default, the differentiation of the
> data subject category is irrelevant as it ultimately only boils down to the
> declaration of the data subject thatthe data contains no personal
> information.
>
>
>
> For b), the term "publish" is undefined. For all we know, it could mean
> publication in a physical print edition (it doesn't mean that though). But
> publication within SSAD can very well be sufficient for that definition.
> There is no reason whatsoever to assume differently.
>
>
>
> --
> 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: 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:52 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via
> Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Milton,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your constructive thoughts. I believe we have a lot to build
> on. In relation to principle one, I think we all agree that some legal data
> subjects would want to publish their data in the RDDS, but without your
> first principle they can only do this through consent. The legal memo
> received lately from Bird & Bird explains that if CPs publish the data of
> legal persons based on consent they are at a higher risk than if they
> publish the data of legal persons based on self-designation. In the latter
> case CPs might only be liable if they fail to address a complaint. So the
> question always was: what is the benefit of labeling the data as belonging
> to a natural or legal person? Of course we all know that GDPR protects the
> data of natural persons and not legal persons, but the important answer now
> is that the distinction significantly reduces the liability of CPs. In
> addition, the distinction is helpful in performing the balancing test in
> case the data is not published and I am sure if we look into individual use
> cases we can find much more benefits. Moreover, it could prove to be useful
> regarding possible upcoming regulations. I would also add that the level of
> protection assigned to the data elements suggested by Steve provides
> additional safe guards and flexibility in the implementation.
>
>
>
> Finally, I join you in being optimistic about our ability to finish this.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Hadia
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L via Gnso-epdp-team
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:12 PM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the proposed guidance
>
>
>
> Colleagues:
>
> I have only gotten time to review the latest Guidance document and the
> surrounding debate today. Apologies, but there is a lot going on in my day
> job.
>
>
>
> I am disappointed to see that we seem to be going backwards. I see
> divergence rather than convergence on the way we are approaching the
> problem.
>
>
>
> I see no point in adding more noise to the current document via the
> Comments function. What I would like to try to do is articulate some broad
> principles about how to deal with the legal/natural distinction. If we can
> agree on those principles, it will be relatively easy to complete the
> document. If we cannot/do not agree on those principles, additional
> wordsmithing and debates over terms will not get us anywhere.
>
>
>
> So here are the broad principles that I would offer up for debate:
>
>
>
> 1. The legal/natural distinction is relevant and we need to find a
> way make it in RDDS without compromising privacy rights.
>
> 2. Registrants should be able to self-designate as legal or
> natural, with no burden of authentication placed on registrars or registries
>
> 3. To protect small home offices or NGOs who are technically Legal
> persons but whose registration data may include Personal data, we need an
> additional check in the process.
>
> 4. As long as they conform with the above 3 principles,
> registrars/ries (CPs) should be given maximum flexibility to choose the way
> to differentiate.
>
>
>
> Principle 1 discussion:
>
> If we cannot agree on this (or agree to abandon this principle), _*nothing
> else will fall into place*_. Ever. So let’s settle that. Steve and Volker
> I suspect will disagree with this principle. Steve has argued that the L/N
> distinction is “not a central concern” and all that matters is whether the
> registrant’s data is to be made available to anyone. If he is right, we can
> discard the guidance altogether, because we already have a recommendation
> to allow the RNH to consent to the publication of their data. Volker has
> also suggested that it is personal data we need to differentiate, not L/N .
> I disagree with Steve and Volker on this and so do most of the rest of the
> group. L/N distinction is a central concern to certain stakeholder groups
> in the EPDP, because a) GDPR and other data protection laws do not protect
> it and this process is all about bringing RDS into compliance with privacy
> law; b) Legal person data could be published and it would provide easier
> access to their registration data. As a NCSG member I can find no basis for
> objecting to the publication of WalMart’s, Kroger’s or the local hardware
> store’s registration data. Any concerns about PII are addressed by
> principles 2 and 3. Steve is approaching this as an engineer, but this is a
> policy process, and we will not obtain agreement on a solution unless
> certain stakeholders are satisfied. If they think it is a central concern,
> it’s a central concern, that’s how policy/politics work.
>
>
>
> Principle 2 discussion
>
> This is the key principle that keeps NCSG and CPH satisfied. Registrants
> are in control of how they are designated. Yes, this means that some people
> will lie. That is just something we will have to accept. One cannot erase
> that possibility without creating a system that is too burdensome and
> costly as to outweigh any benefits.
>
>
>
> Principle 3 discussion
>
> This is something everyone seems to agree on already. But it is good to
> make it explicit, then we can work out how specific our guidance can get,
> so as to conform to …
>
>
>
> Principle 4
>
> Avoid being overly prescriptive, but ensure that the other 3 principles
> are honored. So yes, Volker, we give you maximum flexibility to implement
> in accordance with different business models, but you can NOT make a
> designation for a RNH, because it violates principle 2.
>
>
>
> I truly believe that if we can come to agreement on these 4 principles and
> use them as the basis for drafting guidance, we can actually finish this.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> 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) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> 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) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> 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) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [1] <#m_2854865445665285661__ftnref1> As explained above, we have
> understood this question to be asking about scenarios where Registrants are
> legal persons, as per the EDPB quote at paragraph 1. In respect of
> individual (natural person) Registrants, the issues will be largely
> similar: if a natural person incorrectly states that their data is not
> personal data, then (i) the verification measures should prevent the data
> from being published, since they will give the data subject an opportunity
> to correct their mistake; (ii) the mitigating factors and legal arguments
> described at paragraphs 11.7 and 11.8 and paragraphs 14.1 - 14.6 here,
> should confer reasonable legal protection for Contracted Parties.
>
> [1] <#m_2854865445665285661__ftnref2> In its judgement in Case C‑136/17 *GC
> and Others*, the CJEU explained that GDPR obligations relating to an
> erasure (“Right to Be Forgotten”) request apply “*to the operator of a
> search engine in the context of his responsibilities, powers and
> capabilities as the controller of the processing carried out in connection
> with the activity of the search engine, on the occasion of a verification
> performed by that operator, under the supervision of the competent national
> authorities, following a request by the data subject”*. As the Advocate
> General explained in that case, “*such an operator can act only within
> the framework of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities. In other
> words, such an operator may be incapable of ensuring the full effect of the
> provisions of [EU data protection law], precisely because of its limited
> responsibilities, powers and capabilities. . . An ex ante control of
> internet pages which are referenced as the result of a search does not fall
> within the responsibilities or the capabilities of a search engine*.” It
> could not know, from the moment it indexed a webpage, that the content of
> that page was (for example) out of date (as in the original *Google Spain
> / Costeja* ruling), or (in the *GC and Others* case*) * “special
> category” or “criminal offence” data for which it required consent.
>
> [2] <#m_2854865445665285661__ftnref3> See, for example, Article 14
> <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32000L0031>
> of the e-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC and its transposition into the
> national laws of EU/EEA Member States and the UK.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing listGnso-epdp-team at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> 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) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> 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) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20210418/71a6d347/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team
mailing list