Bastiaan, let me understand. What we are asking for is an opportunity for the EPDP to have a discussion weighing the pros and cons - the balancing consideration called for under GDPR in deciding what data needs to be redacted. So you are against the EPDP using the balance test prescribed by GDPR - something that was not done during Phase 1? Alan At 04/04/2019 04:06 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
Thanks a lot, Alan - your and Hadia’s efforts are much appreciated
(I was not on yesterday’s CPWG call so do not know how this was discussed)
It might not come as a surprise, but I do not agree with the advice on ‘Geographic Differentiation’. Both when it comes to the framing/introduction as well as the conclusion. I do not have time to elaborate on this know, but happy to do so later - in the meantime see my previous comments.
I can agree with the 'Thick WHOIS’ concerns - the part on 'Legal/Natural Person Differentiation' seems redundant to me though, this is already covered by rec#17: 'The EPDP Team will determine and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2’
cheers Bastiaan
*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***
On 3 Apr 2019, at 15:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.
Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.
Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. <Advice-DRAFT-v01.docx>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg