In my view it is not advisable to base this implementation on speculation. It is reasonable the ePDP might eventually report something that could upend the P/P framework. As it might several other consensus policies. The way forward is to acknowledge that the output from the ePDP may fatally undermine a P/P framework but proceed with this work to completion on the current policy perspective. - Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:28 PM Roman, Peter (CRM) <Peter.Roman@usdoj.gov> wrote:
All –
Just to continue the smaller discussion from today’s call:
Putting aside the existential question of whether the business case for privacy/proxy makes sense following the implementation of the GDPR, and assuming that:
1) privacy/proxy providers will continue to do business and
2) the EPDP is going to reach a solution that will give IP rights holders, cybersecurity researchers, law enforcement, and other vetted people access to the registrant data that is not publicly available;
I propose that the IRT consider that, since the second tier of WHOIS data would only be available to vetted, accredited law enforcement, cybersecurity, IP rights holders, etc. that have represented that they have a legitimate purpose for accessing the data, and since that data is merely subscriber data (which under the Council of Europe’s CyberCrime Convention, and numerous other legal regimes as well, is deserving of the lowest level of privacy protection), and therefore no legitimate purpose is served by further hindering access to such data, the IRT should add the following language to the draft PPAA:
3.5.7 Provider shall not provide Services for Customers whose data is non-public.
Or
3.5.7 Provider shall not provide Services for Customers whose data is only accessible through gated access in the RDDS system and is not publicly available through WHOIS.
Thanks,
Peter Roman
Senior Counsel
Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
1301 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-1323
peter.roman@usdoj.gov
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Theo Geurts *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2018 3:08 AM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for tomorrow's PP IRT meeting are attached
Agreed on the moving target part. Not too mention another moving target that will render most of our work right down into the trash if it happens.
http://domainincite.com/23371-could-a-new-us-law-make-gdpr-irrelevant
This draft seems to be in direct conflict with some of the WG's recommendations; https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/upload... <https://via.hypothes.is/https:/www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads...>
Thanks,
Theo
On 30-8-2018 7:55, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
I won’t be able to attend as I’m at an event.
I also agree with the concerns raised by others about pegging **anything** to a moving target, which the Temp Spec is
TLDR – it’s not policy – it’s a stopgap. Baking it into anything else is a really bad idea
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> <amy.bivins@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday 29 August 2018 at 16:22 *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for tomorrow's PP IRT meeting are attached
Dear Colleagues,
This is a reminder that the PP IRT will meet tomorrow, Thursday, 30 August, at 1600 UTC.
A draft markup of the PPAA is attached. This markup is for discussion purposes only—it is not a final proposal and remains subject to revision. The draft is being circulated, without further delay, to continue the conversation. It has not been approved by senior management and is for discussion only.
We would like to begin discussing the following topics tomorrow (but please feel free to comment before then on the list):
(1) Some suggested edits track what’s in the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. For example, section 3.5.3.3. How should we approach drafting provisions modeled on the Temp Spec, given that its language is subject to change in the near future?
(2) The disclosure frameworks seem to be written from the position that there’s no discretion for the Provider to not provide the underlying customer data if the conditions in the framework are met. Is this the intent? This could potentially cause issues under the GDPR, because this doesn’t seem to leave room to balance the interests of the data subjects with the legitimate interest of the parties requesting personal data.
(3) The disclosure frameworks raise additional GDPR-related questions that are similar to questions raised in the Draft Framework Elements of a Potential Unified Access Model <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/framework-elements-unified-acces...> paper published by ICANN org. For example, what would the requirements be for logging requests for disclosure made under the frameworks (or even requests not governed by the frameworks)?
(4) Do you see any other issues that you believe must be addressed related to GDPR that were not addressed in this markup?
(5) Following the completion of the IRT’s review of this draft accreditation agreement and related matters, we believe are ready to proceed to public comment. Do you believe there is any reason why the IRT should not proceed to public comment?
(6) We have heard questions from various members of the community about how the proposed accreditation program requirements will operate within the current Temp Spec RDDS environment. These proposed program requirements do not address how PP registrations interact with a gated access model or how they might be impacted, if at all, by the results of the EPDP. Is this an issue that the IRT believes should be explored at this stage? If any member of the IRT wishes to raise any comments or points about this topic, you are encouraged to do so during the IRT call or via the list.
One area that may need further attention in the agreement is specifically defining what data is to be collected and for what purpose. In addition, the new Specification 8 contains some data processing requirements, but additional discussion is needed on the appropriate controller arrangements that are needed between ICANN, the registrar and the Provider.
Best,
Amy
*Amy E. Bivins*
Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
Registrar Services and Industry Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
Email: amy.bivins@icann.org
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl