[IRT.RegDataPolicy] IRT Liaison report on Rec7 during the 20Aug2020 GNSO Council Meeting

Mon Aug 24 16:30:22 UTC 2020

Hi Sebastien,

Thank you for sharing this on the list.

How does this request below relate to your "suggested path to
resolution" document, are they both being provided to the Council? I
notice that the question to Council at the end of the letter in this
thread below is different from the conclusion you reached in the
document, and the question below would lead the GNSO Council to provide
legal guidance to the Contracted Parties, was that your intent?

And a separate question, but since I'm already writing -- I think you
were going to ask the Council for an update on the consultation between
the ICANN Board and GNSO Council on the portions of Rec #12 not adopted
by the Board. Do you have any further info for us on this topic?

Thank you,

Sarah W

-- 
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

On 8/21/2020 6:15 PM, Ducos, Sebastien via IRT.RegDataPolicy wrote:
>
> Dear IRT,
>
>  
>
> As per our discussion during our IRT call on 19Aug2020, I reported
> yesterday (20Aug2020) to the GNSO Council the IRT’s request for
> clarification on the prior existence of a Legal Basis to support the
> transfer of data under Rec 7.
>
>  
>
> For clarity, I now have to present the said request in writing. I
> propose the following wording, but invite your input.
>
> As has been the case all along in this exercise, this is not a
> reflexion of my personal point of view, but should represent the
> different points of view of the IRT. Please ensure yours is reflected.
>
>  
>
> For the sake of council members who may not all be as familiar with
> the topic as we are, I would like to submit a limited relevant number
> of reference documents for their review. 
>
> Please confirm that the ones I have included are indeed relevant and
> the links I have provided are the most direct to the latest/final
> versions of the said documents.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> [Date]
>
> RE: EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7 – Legal Basis
>
>  
>
> Dear GNSO Council,
>
>  
>
> In an attempt to resolve a different in interpretation of the EPDP
> Phase I Recommendation 7, the IRT is seeking clarification with
> regards to the existence of legal basis which covers the transfer of
> data (including personal data) from Registrars to Registries, in all
> cases.
>
>  
>
> Recommendation 7 states: 
>
> /“The EPDP Team recommends that the specifically-identified data
> elements under “[t]ransmission of registration data from Registrar to
> Registry”, as illustrated in the aggregate data elements workbooks,
> must be transferred from registrar to registry provided an appropriate
> legal basis exists and data processing agreement is in place. In the
> aggregate, these data elements are:”/
>
> / /
>
> [followed by the list of data points that may be transferred, some
> marked as Mandatory (The domain name, fields pertaining to the
> Registrar and Domain Statuses), others as Optional (contact fields,
> name servers, Registrar expiry date and Reseller)]
>
> Ref: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!sCWU7y9IbaKHs6GMHTcYVyVtmbssBSq1aPdTMDjtwrN2EavylO7yn8IgebUbvTovu3GBdw$>
>
>  
>
>  
>
> The IRT remains divided in the interpretation of the mention
> “/provided an appropriate legal basis exists and data processing
> agreement is in place/” with:
>
>   * Parties who consider the mention key as in their view a legal
>     basis may not exist in all cases and must be established for each TLD,
>   * Parties who consider the mention relevant, view the legal basis as
>     pre-established under Consensus Policy and expect that the
>     currently negotiated data processing agreement (between ICANN and
>     the CPH) will reflect the said legal basis,
>   * Parties who consider legal basis established in all cases in this
>     context, and seek to remove the sentence for the avoidance of
>     confusion.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Further, each party cites in its argument:
>
>   * The EPDP Phase I Final Report and the underlying work
>     - https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!sCWU7y9IbaKHs6GMHTcYVyVtmbssBSq1aPdTMDjtwrN2EavylO7yn8IgebUbvTovu3GBdw$>
>   * Existing Consensus Policy including but not limited to the Thick
>     RDDS (WHOIS) Transition Policy
>     - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-transition-policy-2017-02-01-en
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-transition-policy-2017-02-01-en__;!!N14HnBHF!sCWU7y9IbaKHs6GMHTcYVyVtmbssBSq1aPdTMDjtwrN2EavylO7yn8IgebUbvTomhXpJgw$>
>   * The “Bird & Bird memo” of 8 March 2019 “Advice on the legal basis
>     for transferring Thick WHOIS”
>     - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138857/ICANN%20-%20Memo%20on%20thick%20Whois%5B1%5D.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1552176734000&api=v2
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138857/ICANN*20-*20Memo*20on*20thick*20Whois*5B1*5D.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1552176734000&api=v2__;JSUlJSUlJQ!!N14HnBHF!sCWU7y9IbaKHs6GMHTcYVyVtmbssBSq1aPdTMDjtwrN2EavylO7yn8IgebUbvTpLToewLQ$>
>
> and related public comments submitted in the context of the above.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Question to the GNSO Council:
>
>   * Does the GNSO Council advise that there exists under Consensus
>     Policy and in accordance with GDPR a legal basis which covers the
>     transfer of data, including personal data, between Registrar and
>     Registries in all cases?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> [IRT Liaison signature]
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Kindly,
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>
> *Sebastien Ducos*
>
> GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
>
> signature_1081474336
>
> +61449623491
>
> Level 8, 10 Queens Road
>
> Melbourne, VIC, Australia
>
> 3004
>
>
> sebastien at registry.godaddy <mailto:sebastien at registry.godaddy>
>
> www.linkedin.com/in/sebastienducos
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/sebastienducos__;!!N14HnBHF!sCWU7y9IbaKHs6GMHTcYVyVtmbssBSq1aPdTMDjtwrN2EavylO7yn8IgebUbvTpZ-jSKMQ$>
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRT.RegDataPolicy mailing list
> IRT.RegDataPolicy at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/irt.regdatapolicy
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20200824/770424bd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 39875 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20200824/770424bd/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20200824/770424bd/signature-0001.asc>