- Gnso-epdp-team - lists.icann.org

Request for Additional Time on the Initial Report
by Margie Milam Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

HI – On behalf of the BC, we also request additional time to submit comments on the Initial Report. Similar to the Registrars, we are not in a position to commit to a specific day to get them submitted at this point. All the best, Margie

1 0

Proposed Agenda and items for input - EPDP Team Meeting #23
by Marika Konings Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday 5 November at 14.00 UTC. In relation to agenda item 4, please review the following and provide your feedback on the mailing list to help inform the discussion. * Technical contact consent In relation to the data elements that are optional to provide for the Registered Name Holder (RNH), the following language was added to the preliminary recommendation to reflect that the registrar may not have a direct contractual relationship with the data subject whose information is provided by the RNH: If the Registered Name Holder elects to provide contact information for a technical contact who does not have a direct contractual relationship with the registrar, the registrar is required to redact or obtain all necessary consent from the technical contact prior to publication. However, noting that it is currently not proposed that technical contact information would be published, we would suggest making the following update: If the Registered Name Holder elects to provide contact information for a technical contact who does not have a direct contractual relationship with the registrar, the registrar is required to redact or obtain all necessary consent from the technical contact prior to publication any disclosure. Question for the EPDP Team: are you comfortable with the inclusion of this revised language as part of preliminary recommendation #10? If not, please provide your rationale and proposed changes / edits prior to the meeting. * Data retention This recommendation is derived from Data Elements Workbook A. Are there any concerns about this recommendation? The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars are required to retain the herein-specified data elements for a period of one year following the life of the registration. This retention period conforms to the specific statute of limitations within the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (“TDRP”). Other relevant parties, including Registries, escrow providers and ICANN Compliance, have separate retention periods less than or equal to one year accordingly and in line with the GDPR requirements. Question for the EPDP Team: are you comfortable with the inclusion of this preliminary recommendation? If not, please provide your rationale and proposed changes / edits prior to the meeting. Note that in relation to small team #1 and #2 discussions, the leadership team will be putting forward a proposed path forward shortly. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Meeting #23 Agenda Tuesday, 5 November 2018 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) * Proposed approach for reviewing and finalizing the Initial Report * Update on F2F planning * Proposed next steps in relation to small team #1 and #2 language for inclusion in the Initial Report * Review of outstanding action items * Other updates, if applicable 1. Review of outstanding items for Initial Report and proposed approach Objective of discussion: 1. Confirm list of outstanding items to be considered in relation to Initial Report and approach for addressing these * Review outstanding issues punch list (to be circulated) * Confirm approach for addressing these * Confirm next steps, if any 1. Commence addressing outstanding items * Technical contact redaction – any concerns in relation to proposed language for inclusion in the Initial Report? * Data retention – any concerns in relation to proposed language for inclusion in the Initial Report? * Confirm next steps, if any 1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday 8 November at 14.00 UTC. * Confirm action items * Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

5 6

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Further Input from the IPC/BC on Small Team #1 and #2 issues
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

Quote from your message: "It is a black-and-white breach of consumer expectations." Ayden, I am delighted that as opposed to some of your colleagues, you now believe that consumer protection is fully within ICANN's remit. And that we need to build "ethics" into all of our contracts. I fear you may have some difficulty in getting agreement on who's ethics to select. Lastly, please consider that although other jurisdictions have and will continue to enact privacy regulations, they will not all have a baseline of those rules in the GDPR. I am afraid that in the long term, we will have no choice to to adhere to a varying set of regulations and contracted parties that wish to straddle jurisdictions will have to adapt. Regarding cost, it may be unfortunate that some of our new rules will impose costs on contracted parties and thus registrants. Just as the costs of GDPR itself, which are not trivial, are being borne by them. Alan At 04/11/2018 06:35 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: I agree with Farzaneh; all domain name registrants should be shown a baseline of respect, regardless of whether or not they live in a jurisdiction with strong and enforced privacy protections. This is as much an ethical consideration as it is a legal one. While in some other sectors there are fuzzy questions around what information is private and sensitive, and what is innocuous and does not need to be protected, in our situation the case is very simple. There is demonstrable harm that can result from the disclosure of registration data. And look on Twitter at the messages that registrars receive from consumers upset that their registration data has been made public (or “sold” is the perception many consumers have). It is a black-and-white breach of consumer expectations. No one is registering a domain name with the implicit understanding that their contact information will be obtained by a third party. I note this appreciating that some third parties, like law enforcement, will have a need to access registration data, but relying on consumers to themselves take steps to protect their personal information is not going to fly. You can’t ask someone to check a box noting whether or not they are a legal or natural person, because most registrants won’t know the answer or why the distinction matters. What if a natural person becomes confused and indicates they are a legal person? I don’t believe the BC and IPC's proposed language that, “Registrar is entitled to rely on this data in making legal determinations including, without limitation, those related to GDPR and relevant data protection laws,” would shield the contracted party in any meaningful way. Under European Union law at least, standard contract terms must be fair. A registrant cannot sign away a right. A contract is not allowed to create an imbalance between your rights and obligations as a consumer and the rights and obligations of sellers and suppliers. What differentiates the GDPR from its weaker, 1995 predecessor is that it tries to correct the power imbalance that exists between a data controller and a data subject. There were natural information asymmetries that had not self-corrected. The right to know what information has been collected about you in the GDPR, and the right to ask that it be corrected or deleted (also in the GDPR) all support the thesis that there is a power imbalance at play here. The onus in the GDPR is on those with more power - whoever is collecting and processing personal information - to behave in a reasonable way towards consumers and to put the interests of the individual above their own. I know that I have only referenced the GDPR above but that I am asking that GDPR-equivalent protections be applied much more broadly to all registrants. I say this for three reasons. Primarily, because I think it is not unthinkable that increased data protection regulations will be coming to other markets in the near future, including the United States. However there is also the question of cost and whether it is fair to impose upon the contracted parties (and, ultimately, domain name registrants) the cost of achieving compliance with the GDPR by building a separate, parallel process/system for the EU market and a separate, parallel process/system for other markets, or whether it is more economical to simply convert all of one's business processes to conform to the more stringent regulation. And finally, ethics: just because someone lives in a jurisdiction that does not guarantee a right today does not mean there is not an ethical duty of care to deliver it. Kind regards, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, 4 November 2018 07:37, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Diane, How can registrars determine the applicable law even if the geographical information is accurate? I don't think registrars can actually determine which law outside of their own jurisdiction applies to their registrants even if they know the geographical location. For example, as far as I know EU citizens anywhere in the world are protected by GDPR. So their geographical location does not determine what law applies. Registrars have to abide by their local laws, the court of law determines the applicable law and some registries have the choice of law clauses in their agreements with registrars which cannot be in conflict with the local laws of the registrars. All in all determining the "jurisdiction" of data subject is not dependent only on the geographical location of the registrant in this case. Also I think every domain name registrant regardless of where they are located deserve minimum data protection. They are consumers by the way! I am getting increasingly puzzled by IPC/BC interpretation of "accuracy" of personal information of data subjects under GDPR. In my opinion the concept of accuracy in GDPR is actually supposed to protect data subjects and not to be used against them. Accurate information is not about keeping the data accurate so that it can be displayed and accessed and mined by many around the world! The accuracy of data is a right given to data subjects so that inaccurate data cannot be used against them in court and other forums, or be denied a service or end in violating their rights. I believe they have the right for their information to be accurate and not the responsibility (under GDPR) to maintain it accurately. The registrars under GDPR have to maintain the data of domain name registrants "uptodate" to reduce privacy risks. They don't have to keep the database accurate so that they can distinguish between legal and natural persons. I believe by ICO you mean Information Commissioners Office. Specifically this page: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-r… The natural v legal distinction is not only burdensome for the CPs or opens them to liability. It is dangerous for noncommercial/not for porfit/ advocacy organizations that have registered domain names and are vulnerable to attacks of all sorts. I assume IPC/BC wants this distinction so that the org personal sensitive data won't be redacted. I would like to know why. I would like to know why while some groups are fiercely working to have access to personal and sensitive data of domain name registrants for their legitimate interest, also work towards exposing domain name registrants sensitive data to the world. Farzaneh On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:13 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: This all sounds right to me. Alan At 02/11/2018 09:28 PM, Plaut, Diane wrote: Dear EPDP Team- In our efforts to overcome a significant hurdle through our EPDP work � that CPs have expressed they cannot rely on the accuracy of Registrant input and, therefore, are hesitant to distinguish between legal and natural persons or count on country information input by Registrantâ��s because if it is no not accurate, they are concerned they will be liable for identifying the person incorrectly or determining the applicable law incorrectly. We have discussed in the EPDP the prospect of trying to get input from DPAs to confirm that it is reasonable to count on Registrant input. Thomas Rickert has most recently proposed in Barcelona, setting up a meeting with the EDPB and I have expressed my support and desire to partake in this and the legal effort. In the meanwhile, I think it is beneficial for us to try to do our own research and show DPA insight on this topic. To this end, I provide below, guidance from the ICO on this topic. The IPC/BC wishes to add this to the Small Team #1and #2 comments in support of our positions on the issues of supporting the distinction of legal and natural persons and applying relevant country laws. The Accuracy of information provided by data subjects Article 5(1)(d)/(2) GDPR provides that controllers have an obligation to demonstrate compliance with the requirement that: Personal data shall be�accurate and, where necessary, keept up tto date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (â��accuracyâ��). According to the ICO, this means that controllers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the personal data they hold is not incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact. However, the GDPR does not explicitly distinguish between personal data provided by the data subject, provided by a third party or created by the controller – the same obligation applies in each such caase. As to whether it is possible to rely on the data subject for the accuracy of the information, the ICO has confirmed in its guidance that this is possible. In particular, the ICO states that: â��In some cases it t is reasonable to rely on the individual to tell you when their personal data has changed, such as when they change address or other contact details. It may be sensible to periodically ask individuals to update their own details, but you do not need to take extreme measures to ensure your records are up to date, unless there is a corresponding privacy risk which justifies this.â� Howeever, if the controller learns that information is no longer accurate/up to date (either from the data subject or from other information which comes to light), the controller should update its records accordingly. The ICO also recognizes that it may be impractical to check the accuracy of personal data someone else provides. In such cases, the ICO suggests that controllers must: Â· accurately record the information provided; Â· accurately record the source of the information; Â· take â��reasononable stepsâ� in the circumstances to ensure the accurracy of the information; and Â· carefully consider any challenges to the accuracy of the information. Given that the data subject itself inputs and supplies the data registration information (elements) in issue, there is a strong argument that under the above guidance by the ICO, it is reasonable to reply on the accuracy of this information for purposes of distinguishing between legal and natural persons and for purposes of correct geographical information in relation to applicable law purposes. Moreover, in addition to and to support the above, the IPC and BC further strongly support the following legal recommendation be added to both Small Team #1 and Small Team #2 input that contractual provisions be added to agreements so that overall accuracy standards are achieved, stating: The above-identified Registrant represents and warrants that the data provided herein is true, complete and accurate. It could even go one step further and expressly say that Registrar is entitled to rely on this data in making legal determinations including, without limitation, those related to GDPR and relevant data protection laws. Nothing in the above, limits the application of the ICO guidance from supporting greater accuracy required by all parties. Sincerely, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer Direct +1 646-899-2806 â�¨ diane.plaut(a)corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch..com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United Statesâ�¨www.corsearch.com Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1â�¢ (1 800 732 72441)â�¨ Corsearch.USCustomerService(a)corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corssearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Further Input from the IPC/BC on Small Team #1 and #2 issues
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

Just to note that as Hadia has since pointed out, her first sentence was a simplification with she covered a few lines down with "The data rights of the registrants is determined by their location (not their citizenship) in addition to the location of the controller and processor." Farzi's original statement "For example, as far as I know EU citizens anywhere in the world are protected by GDPR" may well have been accurate but by this point in the EPDP, hopefully everyone knows that this is not the case. Alan At 04/11/2018 01:44 PM, Alan Woods wrote: Just wish to jump in on Hadiaâ€™s point alone (I have many thoughts on the submissions but letâ€™s see how the leadership team present the divergence, and we can respond accordingly) But that being said, I am moved to this email, to clarify a point of law, as Hadia, you are somewhat mistaken and clarification is needed to avoid further confusion. To your point Hadia, you are only looking at half the picture. If mere residency of the data subject were the sole determinative factor, then yes I could accept the validity of that argument; however, the GDPR applies to all European data not just the data of European resident persons. E.g. If I am an EU citizen, residing in Mongolia, but I use a European registrar, then the GDPR will apply to my registration data; If I am a US citizen residing in Europe and chose an American registrar , the GDPR applies; If I am a US citizen, residing in Mongolia, and I use a South African registrar, but via a EU reseller, then the GDPR applies... and so on... We must be clear that this task of properly identifying the GDPRâ€™s applicability is not as simple or straightforward a task as it is being lauded by some. Kind regards, Alan On Sun 4 Nov 2018 at 17:45, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> > wrote: The question was whether accurate Geo location can help CPs identify applicable laws. Yes GDPR applies to data subjects who are "in" the EU. And a lot of sources on Google say that EU citizens are not protected by GDPR when outside of the EU and it applies to those who are "in" the EU when data being processed. So non resident EU citizens (A French national living in China) is not a GDPR data subject. There are still arguments over that as well. The only thing that might be clear is that those physically in the EU at the time of registration (regardless of their nationality) are data subject just to make sure gdpr coverage goes beyond citizenship. But it is not clear what would happen to EU citizens on vacation or long stays in other countries. Does being "in" the EU refer to the "location" of data subject at the time of registration or does it for EU citizens refer to the main place of residence? A French citizen who registers a domain name on vacation in the Caribbean is not physically present in the EU at the time of registration. Is that person not subject to GDPR because they were not in the EU ? Or if they register a domain in Port of Spain indicating their location as Paris then what would happen ?Is there a EDPB avice on this? All in all, yes GDPR applies to those who are "in" the EU regardless of their nationality. But in the case of domain name registration, geographical location does not clarify the applicable law in my opinion. Many other factors have to be taken into account. What is being in the EU? does that mean where they have their main residency? where they pay taxes? where their cruise is taking them? If we don't have clarity on this we cannot simply say if they make their geographical location clear we have established the applicable law correctly. Hadia I am glad you are asking which organizations would want to hide their physical address from the public. I hope this can provide some explanation as to why I get irritated when we are lumping all organizations together and ask for their sensitive data to be exposed to the public: Organizations that are critical of their governments and even if established abroad can be under threat Organizations that work for minority rights and women rights Organizations that are trying to hold various actors accountable Organizations that analyze and criticize religious extremists Human rights law firms/HR lawyers in certain parts of this world are in prison ... I can continue some say we are not here to protect and advance human rights. We are not here to violate HR and put people in danger either. We are not here to protect all consumers globally from whatever fraud regardless of whether it relates to DNS. We are not here to facilitate all kinds of law enforcement action that do not relate to security stability resiliency of DNS, we are not here to protect trademark and IP at any cost and at a global scale and beyond ICANN mission. Does distinguishing between legal and natural person help with advancing ICANN purpose and mission or third party interest? Please tell me how. I wish someone could answer my question. For the past three months, this group was dominated by access to WHOIS sensitive personal data discussion. We compromised. Access is now an ICANN purpose. Is it not enough? Is it not enough to pursue your purpose? Why is there a need for distinguishing between legal vs natural persons? If you have legitimate interest you can access anyway. Please let me know why it's not enough to give access to legitimate interest parties and redact orgs sensitive data too. On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 10:08 AM Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All There are avalanche of contradicting messages Everyone pushes for its own views Pls ce the validity of all statement Haida Pls clarify what you said about GDPR against a clause of articles to validate what you stated . Others are talking of accuracy They are requested to explore what accuracy they are looking by giving examples Fritz is kindly requested to reconcile all these contradictory statements Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 4 Nov 2018, at 15:02, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia(a)tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>> wrote: Hi Farzi, Just a quick clarification GDPR does not apply to EU citizens not residing in the EU. The GDPR is not concerned with the citizenship it is concerned with where the person is located. If you leave an EU country and travel to a non EU country you are no longer protected by the GDPR. The data rights of the EU citizens located outside of the EU is protected by the laws of the territory that they are at. The data rights of the registrants is determined by their location (not their citizenship) in addition to the location of the controller and processor. And with regard to protecting registrants we should also not forget the necessity of protecting the registrants against domains hijacking and thefts which could be devastating to the domain name holder not only financially but in terms of accessibility to the site in case it is a not for profit web page or domain and the rights of the registrants to be able to pursue their rights in this regard. Finally and on another note which legal entities or businesses would like to be kept hidden?? Best Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [ mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of farzaneh badii Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2018 9:38 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>; alex(a)the-online.net<mailto:alex@the-online.net>; GNSO EPDP Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Further Input from the IPC/BC on Small Team #1 and #2 issues Dear Diane, How can registrars determine the applicable law even if the geographical information is accurate? I don't think registrars can actually determine which law outside of their own jurisdiction applies to their registrants even if they know the geographical location. For example, as far as I know EU citizens anywhere in the world are protected by GDPR. So their geographical location does not determine what law applies. Registrars have to abide by their local laws, the court of law determines the applicable law and some registries have the choice of law clauses in their agreements with registrars which cannot be in conflict with the local laws of the registrars. All in all determining the "jurisdiction" of data subject is not dependent only on the geographical location of the registrant in this case. Also I think every domain name registrant regardless of where they are located deserve minimum data protection. They are consumers by the way! I am getting increasingly puzzled by IPC/BC interpretation of "accuracy" of personal information of data subjects under GDPR. In my opinion the concept of accuracy in GDPR is actually supposed to protect data subjects and not to be used against them. Accurate information is not about keeping the data accurate so that it can be displayed and accessed and mined by many around the world! The accuracy of data is a right given to data subjects so that inaccurate data cannot be used against them in court and other forums, or be denied a service or end in violating their rights. I believe they have the right for their information to be accurate and not the responsibility (under GDPR) to maintain it accurately. The registrars under GDPR have to maintain the data of domain name registrants "uptodate" to reduce privacy risks. They don't have to keep the database accurate so that they can distinguish between legal and natural persons. I believe by ICO you mean Information Commissioners Office. Specifically this page: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-r… The natural v legal distinction is not only burdensome for the CPs or opens them to liability. It is dangerous for noncommercial/not for porfit/ advocacy organizations that have registered domain names and are vulnerable to attacks of all sorts. I assume IPC/BC wants this distinction so that the org personal sensitive data won't be redacted. I would like to know why. I would like to know why while some groups are fiercely working to have access to personal and sensitive data of domain name registrants for their legitimate interest, also work towards exposing domain name registrants sensitive data to the world. Farzaneh On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:13 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: This all sounds right to me. Alan At 02/11/2018 09:28 PM, Plaut, Diane wrote: Dear EPDP Team- In our efforts to overcome a significant hurdle through our EPDP work â€“ that CPs have expressed they cannot rely on the accuracy of Registrant input and, therefore, are hesitant to distinguish between legal and natural persons or count on country information input by RegistrantÃ¢€™s because if it is not accurateate, they are concerned they will be liable for identifying the person incorrectly or determining the applicable law incorrectly. We have discussed in the EPDP the prospect of trying to get input from DPAs to confirm that it is reasonable to count on Registrant input. Thomas Rickert has most recently proposed in Barcelona, setting up a meeting with the EDPB and I have expressed my support and desire to partake in this and the legal effort. In the meanwhile, I think it is beneficial for us to try to do our own research and show DPA insight on this topic. To this end, I provide below, guidance from the ICO on this topic. The IPC/BC wishes to add this to the Small Team #1and #2 comments in support of our positions on the issues of supporting the distinction of legal and natural persons and applying relevant country laws. The Accuracy of information provided by data subjects Article 5(1)(d)/(2) GDPR provides that controllers have an obligation to demonstrate compliance with the requirement that: Personal data shall be…accurate and, where necessary, keept up tto date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (Ã¢€˜accuracyÃ¢€™). According to the ICO, this means that controllers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the personal data they hold is not incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact. However, the GDPR does not explicitly distinguish between personal data provided by the data subject, provided by a third party or created by the controller – the same obligation applies in each such caase. As to whether it is possible to rely on the data subject for the accuracy of the information, the ICO has confirmed in its guidance that this is possible. In particular, the ICO states that: Ã¢€œIn somome cases it is reasonable to rely on the individual to tell you when their personal data has changed, such as when they change address or other contact details. It may be sensible to periodically ask individuals to update their own details, but you do not need to take extreme measures to ensure your records are up to date, unless there is a corresponding privacy risk which justifies this.Ã¢€ However, if the controller learns that information iis no longer accurate/up to date (either from the data subject or from other information which comes to light), the controller should update its records accordingly. The ICO also recognizes that it may be impractical to check the accuracy of personal data someone else provides. In such cases, the ICO suggests that controllers must: Ã‚Â· accurately record the information provided; Ã‚Â· accurately record the source of the information; Ã‚Â· take Ã¢â‚¬œreasonable stepsÃ¢€ in the circumstances to ensure e the accuracy of the information; and Ã‚Â· carefully consider any challenges to the accuracy of the information. Given that the data subject itself inputs and supplies the data registration information (elements) in issue, there is a strong argument that under the above guidance by the ICO, it is reasonable to reply on the accuracy of this information for purposes of distinguishing between legal and natural persons and for purposes of correct geographical information in relation to applicable law purposes. Moreover, in addition to and to support the above, the IPC and BC further strongly support the following legal recommendation be added to both Small Team #1 and Small Team #2 input that contractual provisions be added to agreements so that overall accuracy standards are achieved, stating: The above-identified Registrant represents and warrants that the data provided herein is true, complete and accurate. It could even go one step further and expressly say that Registrar is entitled to rely on this data in making legal determinations including, without limitation, those related to GDPR and relevant data protection laws. Nothing in the above, limits the application of the ICO guidance from supporting greater accuracy required by all parties. Sincerely, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer Error! Filename not specified. Direct +1 646-899-2806 Ã¢€Â¨ diane.plaut(a)corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42<https://maps.google.com/?q=220+West+42&entry=gmail&source=g>nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United StatesÃ¢€ÂÂ¨www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1Ã¢„Â¢ (1 8000 732 7241)Ã¢€Â¨ Corsearch.USCustomerService(a)corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerServiice@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team -- Alan Woods Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc. ________________________________ The Victorians, 15-18 Earlsfort Terrace Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

1 0

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 06 November 2018 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 14:00 UTC via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/qA68BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Further Input from the IPC/BC on Small Team #1 and #2 issues - the way forward
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

Hi all, With regard to the distinction between natural and legal persons I would like to start with some factual points 1. The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data of natural persons and not to personal data that concerns legal persons; recital 14 says " This regulation does not cover the processing of personal data which concerns legal persons and in particular undertakings established as legal persons" 2. We are not the ones who decided on this distinction the GDPR did and ICANN is not in the business of making laws 3. The CPs are concerned because · The information of legal persons might as well be personal information of natural persons. (Which might put the CPs at risk) · The registrants might identify themselves incorrectly (Which might put the CPs at risk) · They are not sure about the practicality and implementation of this distinction. To address the concerns of the contracted parties 1. Some registries are already making this distinction like EURid where the registrar agreement defines personal data as follows " “Personal Data” means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. An identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular, by reference or identification number or by one or more factors specific to his or her physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity" some other registries have also taken this approach. Looking at all the red-lines and clean versions provided by all groups with regard to the work of small team 1. We all agree in the recommendations section on having the GDD staff commence a research on how currently ccTLDs and CPs make the distinction between the natural and legal persons. I assume that the research will not only tackle the implementation or the technological aspect of this but also the legal aspects and the risks associated 2. Dianne, Thomas and others have suggested to try to get guidance from the DPAs or EC in this regard. I believe that after we get the results of the above, we might be able to reach consensus on the matter. Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 1:36 PM To: Diane Plaut Cc: Alex Deacon; Gnso-epdp-team; gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Further Input from the IPC/BC on Small Team #1 and #2 issues Hi Diane, I am still waiting for a response from the EC. Will let all of you know once there is news to report. All the best, Thomas Am 05.11.2018 um 02:02 schrieb Plaut, Diane <Diane.Plaut(a)corsearch.com<mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>>: Dear Thomas- Thank you for thoughtful analysis, as usual. I agree that we have to get further input from other DPAs, and I have told you that I very much want to support and be part of that effort (the meeting you offered to set up). This was a starting point to push this effort forward, and I believe a good starting point because the ICO is recognized as a source of moderate guidance. Getting DPA guidance is an important and essential effort that we both know needs to happen to allow the EPDP to come up with practical solutions to the legal application of data protection laws, and specifically the GDPR, to answer the charter questions and advance a working DNS system. Please let me know if you were able to make progress on setting up the meeting in November, as discussed. Sincerely, Diane On Nov 4, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Thomas Rickert <epdp(a)gdpr.ninja<mailto:epdp@gdpr.ninja>> wrote: Hi Diane, all, Thanks for doing research on this and sharing information from the ICO with the group. This has sparked off quiet some discussion, which is good. Reading all the e-mails I cannot help feeling that you are talking past each other, at least to a certain extent. We are trying to answer the question whether a distinction between natural and legal persons should be made. Some say that the distinction should not be made as there are risks when you make the distinction. If a legal person’s name is PII and if a contracted party then publishes that data, it will be in breach of the GDPR and potentially be at the risk of being fined. The ICO on the other hand, says that information from the data subject can be trusted. What that means is that the registrar does not have to do validation. Let’s say I mistype my name - that is nothing the registrar needs to investigate. But that is different from a sole trader who gives his name and tags it legal person. I do not think the ICO would go as far as saying that the data subject’s potentially inaccurate submission of information would include the legal consequences of being put into the bucket of legal entities. In fact, that could mean that the individual would get its data disclosed and not be able to exercise rights under GDPR. This is why I think we should try to get guidance from the DPAs or the EC. If they say the parties involved will not be sanctioned if they rely on the self-identification of a customer, that is fine. Absent such clarification, we need to continue the conversation…. I hope this helps. Best, Thomas Am 03.11.2018 um 02:28 schrieb Plaut, Diane <Diane.Plaut(a)corsearch.com<mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>>: Dear EPDP Team- In our efforts to overcome a significant hurdle through our EPDP work – that CPs have expressed they cannot rely on the accuracy of Registrant input and, therefore, are hesitant to distinguish between legal and natural persons or count on country information input by Registrant’s because if it is not accurate, they are concerned they will be liable for identifying the person incorrectly or determining the applicable law incorrectly. We have discussed in the EPDP the prospect of trying to get input from DPAs to confirm that it is reasonable to count on Registrant input. Thomas Rickert has most recently proposed in Barcelona, setting up a meeting with the EDPB and I have expressed my support and desire to partake in this and the legal effort. In the meanwhile, I think it is beneficial for us to try to do our own research and show DPA insight on this topic. To this end, I provide below, guidance from the ICO on this topic. The IPC/BC wishes to add this to the Small Team #1and #2 comments in support of our positions on the issues of supporting the distinction of legal and natural persons and applying relevant country laws. The Accuracy of information provided by data subjects Article 5(1)(d)/(2) GDPR provides that controllers have an obligation to demonstrate compliance with the requirement that: Personal data shall be…accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’). According to the ICO, this means that controllers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the personal data they hold is not incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact. However, the GDPR does not explicitly distinguish between personal data provided by the data subject, provided by a third party or created by the controller – the same obligation applies in each such case. As to whether it is possible to rely on the data subject for the accuracy of the information, the ICO has confirmed in its guidance that this is possible. In particular, the ICO states that: “In some cases it is reasonable to rely on the individual to tell you when their personal data has changed, such as when they change address or other contact details. It may be sensible to periodically ask individuals to update their own details, but you do not need to take extreme measures to ensure your records are up to date, unless there is a corresponding privacy risk which justifies this.” However, if the controller learns that information is no longer accurate/up to date (either from the data subject or from other information which comes to light), the controller should update its records accordingly. The ICO also recognizes that it may be impractical to check the accuracy of personal data someone else provides. In such cases, the ICO suggests that controllers must: · accurately record the information provided; · accurately record the source of the information; · take “reasonable steps” in the circumstances to ensure the accuracy of the information; and · carefully consider any challenges to the accuracy of the information. Given that the data subject itself inputs and supplies the data registration information (elements) in issue, there is a strong argument that under the above guidance by the ICO, it is reasonable to reply on the accuracy of this information for purposes of distinguishing between legal and natural persons and for purposes of correct geographical information in relation to applicable law purposes. Moreover, in addition to and to support the above, the IPC and BC further strongly support the following legal recommendation be added to both Small Team #1 and Small Team #2 input that contractual provisions be added to agreements so that overall accuracy standards are achieved, stating: The above-identified Registrant represents and warrants that the data provided herein is true, complete and accurate. It could even go one step further and expressly say that Registrar is entitled to rely on this data in making legal determinations including, without limitation, those related to GDPR and relevant data protection laws. Nothing in the above, limits the application of the ICO guidance from supporting greater accuracy required by all parties. Sincerely, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer <image001.png> Direct +1 646-899-2806<tel:+1%20646-899-2806>  diane.plaut(a)corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241<tel:1%20800%20732%207241>) Corsearch.USCustomerService(a)corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed approach for reviewing and finalizing the Initial Report - please take note of first deadline for Monday 5 November
by Marika Konings Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

Dear All, Please note that there was a mix up in the dates / days in the table below, this has now been updated so please use this version as your reference. Also, as requested, please find attached a Word version of the Initial Report. Please do not redline, but use the following form to provide your input https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SoNTnvvadNQ8nX_-OxN4mtsd-gfLNxT54GXSXyG…. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:23 PM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed approach for reviewing and finalizing the Initial Report - please take note of first deadline for Monday 5 November Dear All, Per our discussion today, please find hereby the proposed approach for reviewing and finalizing the Initial Report. Attached you will find the version of the Initial Report that was presented during the meeting earlier today. Line numbers have been included to facilitate referencing / identifying sections. Please take specific note of the first deadline for Monday 5 November to flag responses to charter questions and/or preliminary recommendations that need to be considered (apart from those that have already been identified). When What By whom Why Monday 5 November Team to flag responses to charter questions and/or preliminary recommendations that need to be considered and why, identifying concerns/issues to be further discussed (as a reminder, all items highlighted in blue will be further considered / reviewed and so need not be raised). This is intended to capture sections requiring additional discussion - specific edits not needed at this point, just a general description of the discussion or re-litigation that is recommended. EPDP Team members To allow leadership team & staff plan meeting schedule and topics to be addressed in upcoming meetings. Tuesday 6 November Put forward list of outstanding issues & call schedule to address outstanding issues Leadership Team / Support Team Plan remaining meetings as well potential additional ones to address issues identified Wednesday 7 November (at the latest) Submit specific substantive comments / edits on the mailing list by: · Identifying the line number and issue of concern · Put forward proposed changes (factoring in the view points of others and discussions held until date – no reopening of previously agreed upon items) · Outline the rationale for proposed change(s) Submit these by using this google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SoNTnvvadNQ8nX_-OxN4mtsd-gfLNxT54GXSXyG… EPDP Team Groups (SG/C/ACs – not individual comments) Capture and create inventory of specific comments to be reviewed and addressed by the EPDP Team. Thursday 8 November Share list of comments that need further review / discussion. Schedule additional calls as needed to review and discuss substantive comments submitted. Leadership team / Support Team Develop systematic way for reviewing input provided with the objective of finalizing the Initial Report for publication Friday 16 November Publish proposed final version of Initial Report for EPDP Team review. Minor updates (grammatical issues or other) can be flagged off-list to staff for fixing prior to publication. Support Team Allow for ‘final’ review to identify minor issues that should be fixed prior to publication. Monday 19 November Publish Initial Report for public comment Support Team We appreciate that meeting these deadlines will require substantial work from all involved – we hope we can count on your support. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

2 1

Decision on face to face meeting
by Stephanie Perrin Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

Can we please know the decision on when the face to face meeting will be held? Some of us have other face to face meetings to attend in December, and need to know in order to plan travel. Thanks Stephanie Perrin

1 0

Further Input from the IPC/BC on Small Team #1 and #2 issues
by Plaut, Diane Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

Dear EPDP Team- In our efforts to overcome a significant hurdle through our EPDP work – that CPs have expressed they cannot rely on the accuracy of Registrant input and, therefore, are hesitant to distinguish between legal and natural persons or count on country information input by Registrant’s because if it is not accurate, they are concerned they will be liable for identifying the person incorrectly or determining the applicable law incorrectly. We have discussed in the EPDP the prospect of trying to get input from DPAs to confirm that it is reasonable to count on Registrant input. Thomas Rickert has most recently proposed in Barcelona, setting up a meeting with the EDPB and I have expressed my support and desire to partake in this and the legal effort. In the meanwhile, I think it is beneficial for us to try to do our own research and show DPA insight on this topic. To this end, I provide below, guidance from the ICO on this topic. The IPC/BC wishes to add this to the Small Team #1and #2 comments in support of our positions on the issues of supporting the distinction of legal and natural persons and applying relevant country laws. The Accuracy of information provided by data subjects Article 5(1)(d)/(2) GDPR provides that controllers have an obligation to demonstrate compliance with the requirement that: Personal data shall be…accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’). According to the ICO, this means that controllers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the personal data they hold is not incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact. However, the GDPR does not explicitly distinguish between personal data provided by the data subject, provided by a third party or created by the controller – the same obligation applies in each such case. As to whether it is possible to rely on the data subject for the accuracy of the information, the ICO has confirmed in its guidance that this is possible. In particular, the ICO states that: “In some cases it is reasonable to rely on the individual to tell you when their personal data has changed, such as when they change address or other contact details. It may be sensible to periodically ask individuals to update their own details, but you do not need to take extreme measures to ensure your records are up to date, unless there is a corresponding privacy risk which justifies this.” However, if the controller learns that information is no longer accurate/up to date (either from the data subject or from other information which comes to light), the controller should update its records accordingly. The ICO also recognizes that it may be impractical to check the accuracy of personal data someone else provides. In such cases, the ICO suggests that controllers must: · accurately record the information provided; · accurately record the source of the information; · take “reasonable steps” in the circumstances to ensure the accuracy of the information; and · carefully consider any challenges to the accuracy of the information. Given that the data subject itself inputs and supplies the data registration information (elements) in issue, there is a strong argument that under the above guidance by the ICO, it is reasonable to reply on the accuracy of this information for purposes of distinguishing between legal and natural persons and for purposes of correct geographical information in relation to applicable law purposes. Moreover, in addition to and to support the above, the IPC and BC further strongly support the following legal recommendation be added to both Small Team #1 and Small Team #2 input that contractual provisions be added to agreements so that overall accuracy standards are achieved, stating: The above-identified Registrant represents and warrants that the data provided herein is true, complete and accurate. It could even go one step further and expressly say that Registrar is entitled to rely on this data in making legal determinations including, without limitation, those related to GDPR and relevant data protection laws. Nothing in the above, limits the application of the ICO guidance from supporting greater accuracy required by all parties. Sincerely, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806  diane.plaut(a)corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService(a)corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession.

10 15

Requested Edits to Recommendation 8
by Ayden Férdeline Nov. 4, 2018

Nov. 4, 2018

Dear all, I wish to propose a small modification to the language in Recommendation 8 for clarity. The current text reads as follows: The EPDP Team recommends that redaction must be applied as follows to the data elements that are collected. Data elements not redacted must appear in a freely accessible directory: I request it be modified to read: The EPDP Team recommends that redaction must be applied as follows to the data elements that are collected. Data elements neither redacted nor anonymized must appear in a freely accessible directory: In the table itself, for the field of email, "No" should be revised to "Yes. Anonymized Email Address OR Web Form to be provided." In addition, I request that footnote 7 be revised from: Per the current temp spec requirement: 2.5.1. Registrar MUST provide an email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact, but MUST NOT identify the contact email address or the contact itself So to read: The EPDP Team recommends that the 17 May 2018 temp spec requirement that a Registrar MUST provide an email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact, but MUST NOT identify the contact email address or the contact itself, continue to be in effect. Thank you. Kind regards, Ayden Férdeline (NCSG)

1 0