[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Purpose in accordance with Registry Agreement section 2.18

Lisa Phifer lisa at corecom.com
Sat Jun 3 04:15:47 UTC 2017 

The same NORC study examined potentially 
commercial activity on websites hosted by sampled 
domain names. As this is not a straight-forward 
classification, I'd encourage you to read the 
executive summary of the study itself, found here:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/registrant-identification-summary-23may13-en.pdf

That said, one finding that may be helpful in 
answer to your question: "Domain names registered 
by natural persons were equally as likely to be 
used for some kind of potentially commercial 
activity as the overall sample ­ 55.4 ± 4.3 
percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.6 percent." (page 4)

-- Lisa Phifer


At 06:01 PM 6/2/2017, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>The interesting question is of the 33% natural 
>persons how many are engaging in commerce and 
>thus not entitled to a privacy shield.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 2, 2017, at 18:44, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephanie.
> >
> > This seems clear to me.  Of the 1600 WHOIS records randomly retrieved
> > • 59% (legal persons + p/p registrations) 
> appear to not be natural persons.
> > • 33% appear to be natural persons.
> > • 8% could not be determined.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on 
> behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> > Date: Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:34 PM
> > To: Dotzero <dotzero at gmail.com>
> > Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Purpose in 
> accordance with Registry Agreement section 2.18
> >
> >    Well, I guess I must be confused.  Here 
> are the results of the NORC study, please tell 
> me how I should be reading these.  P2, executive summary.
> >    Stephanie
> >
> >    NORC
> >    |
> >    Project Summary Report
> >    WHOIS Registrant I
> >    dentification Study
> >    | 2
> >    Nevertheless, NORC has produced a coded set of data
> >    that is useful for its intended purpose—an
> >    exploratory study of registrant and domain user char
> >    acteristics and the types of domain use activities.
> >    With respect to answering
> >    the issues posed by the GAC:
> >    
> >    Percentage of registrants that are natural versus legal persons
> >    : Based on our analysis of the
> >    WHOIS records retrieved from a random sample of
> >    1,600 domains from the top five gTLDs,
> >    ï‚·
> >    39 percent (± 2.4 percent
> >    1
> >    ) appear to be registered by legal persons
> >    ï‚·
> >    33 percent (± 2.3 percent) appear to
> >    be registered by natural persons
> >    ï‚·
> >    20 percent (± 2.0 percent) were 
> registered using a privacy or proxy service.
> >    ï‚·
> >    We were unable to classify the remaining 8 pe
> >    rcent (± 1.4 percent) using data available
> >    from WHOIS.
> >
> >
> >    On 2017-06-02 16:15, Dotzero wrote:
> >
> >
> >    The overwhelming majority of domains 
> registered would be considered for commercial 
> purposes. The fact that a small percentage of 
> domains are registered by individuals for 
> personal use should not be the determining 
> factor as to what is appropriate for ICANN
> >     to do. In fact, many of what people 
> assert are personal domains have advertising on 
> them and would therefor be considered by almost 
> any jurisdiction to be engaged in a commercial 
> activity. This includes many (most?) parked domains.
> >
> >
> >    Under these circumstances, having 
> disclosure requirement in registry/registrar 
> agreements seems very appropriate and 
> reasonable. Adding in the fact that "private 
> registration" is an option reduces the scope of the issue even further.
> >
> >
> >    This is starting to increasingly look like 
> a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> >
> >
> >    Michael Hammer
> >
> >
> >    On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> >    <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >
> >    This clause has not been acceptable in the 
> past, even before GDPR.  I think it is worth 
> pointing out that what is in the ICANN 
> agreements has been repeatedly pointed out, 
> notably by the Art 29 WG, but certainly
> >     by others such as the IWGDPT, as 
> violating DP law.  These documents I believe 
> are all in our repository.  So please let us 
> not assume that what has been happening is ok, 
> even if we sign contract after contract with 
> the same offending clauses in them.  Consent
> >     in most jurisdictions has to be some 
> variant of "free, enlightened, and 
> informed".  Noone can be compelled to consent 
> to a practice that is disproportionate or fails 
> the necessity test...An ability to withdraw 
> consent has to be available.  I won't go on and
> >     on but this clause obviously does not pass this test.
> >
> >    In my opinion, the longer ICANN tries to 
> stymie the DPAs and ignore necessary changes in 
> privacy policy, the greater the risk they run 
> that a viral campaign will be launched among ordinary users, to appeal to the
> >     Courts.  DPAs try to effect change 
> through dialogue.  WHen dialogue fails, 
> individuals have to take cases to Court.  We don't want that.
> >    Stephanie
> >
> >
> >    On 2017-06-02 08:19, Volker Greimann wrote:
> >
> >
> >    I was just reviewing the changes to the 
> registry agreement again and I noticed a 
> section that has relevance here as well and that had not been discussed here.
> >
> >
> >    Apparently the definition of the purpose 
> for personal data collection as far as ICANN is 
> concerned is the job of the registry operators:
> >
> >
> >    2.18 Personal Data. Registry Operator 
> shall (i) notify each ICANN-accredited 
> registrar that is a party to the 
> Registry-Registrar Agreement for the TLD of the 
> purposes for which data about any identified or 
> identifiable natural person (“Personal Data”) submitted
> >     to Registry Operator by such registrar is 
> collected and used under this Agreement or 
> otherwise and the intended recipients (or 
> categories of recipients) of such Personal 
> Data, and (ii) require such registrar to obtain 
> the consent of each registrant in the
> >     TLD for such collection and use of 
> Personal Data. Registry Operator shall take 
> reasonable steps to protect Personal Data 
> collected from such registrar from loss, 
> misuse, unauthorized disclosure, alteration or 
> destruction. Registry Operator shall not use or
> >     authorize the use of Personal Data in a 
> way that is incompatible with the notice provided to registrars.
> >
> >
> >    This does have some relevance to our 
> current discussion, so I thought I'd recklessly post it here!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    _______________________________________________
> >    gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >    gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> > 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg 
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rds-pdp-wg&data=02%7C01%7Calex_deacon%40mpaa.org%7Cd7a8099b4ae441604dba08d4aa0f3a8a%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636320429778775386&sdata=y2j0LULS69MrHIP0UNcIxg4UWGR0h89twrk%2FQNa6pO8%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list