Hi all, I would like to thank Sarah, Greg, and Mark Sv for helping us organize these concepts and frame the possible options. I support James’ request to staff, noting that ICANN’s preferences, while not dispositive, are valuable input for our work. Good point, Ashley. James, I think we’re mostly on board, and there is additional value to the CPs in the model you outline if there is no right to deny the request. The Bird & Bird memo notes that, “a CP's liability under the GDPR is significantly affected by whether it is a "controller" or a "processor", and that this determination hinges on three factors: 1. The degree of actual control exercised by a party, 2. The image given to data subjects, and 3. Reasonable expectations of data subjects on the basis of this visibility. We can (and should) drastically influence 2 and 3 with policy recommendations that require crystal-clear notice to registrants about how registration data will be processed. We identified this opportunity early on as the RAA is insufficiently vague, and I think we’re probably unanimous on this. The remaining factor tending to increase CP liability is the degree of actual control exercised, or “the right to deny the request.” I understand that the ability to deny requests appears attractive for risk mitigation, but I implore CPs and the EPDP team to understand that this would increase liability for CPs. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs T +1 443 761 3726 markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> MarkMonitor Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 2:24 PM To: Heineman, Ashley <AHeineman@ntia.gov>; Greg Aaron <greg@illumintel.com>; 'Sarah Wyld' <swyld@tucows.com>; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks Greg – I think we’re assuming that there’s no scenario where ICANN wants (or is able) to operate a replica of all gTLD RDS. But we still need them to explicitly state this, so we can work around it and move on. Ashely – Contracted Parties have had some (informal) discussions about our preferred model, and I think your description is closest to the mark. Some “entity” takes the request, checks it for accuracy/validity, and then relays it to the appropriate Contracted Party. The CP then responds to the entity, either by providing the non-public data or issuing a denial (with rationale). In this approach the Contracted Party is only concerned with transactions to the centralized entity, and retains the right to deny the request if something doesn’t pass the smell test. CPs also recognize that some degree of credential & request verification “pre-screening” has already taken place. Requestors have the benefit of a single point of contact with a standardized request format for all TLDs/Registrars. The question in front of us Is whether or not ICANN is willing & able to assume that role -- either directly or by creating/delegating some other entity. J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.gov<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.gov>> Date: Friday, September 20, 2019 at 13:10 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Greg Aaron <greg@illumintel.com<mailto:greg@illumintel.com>>, 'Sarah Wyld' <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks Notice: This email is from an external sender. Hi all. Thanks for this and a quick question on the questions. Does ICANN *have to* establish a replica database in this scenario? Can't the information just more or less pass through ICANN? That would mean less data being transferred and could also presumably less data stored/retained. Right? Just thinking out loud in an effort to identify other options so we don't unintentionally box ourselves in. Thanks! Ashley (GAC) ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 11:35 AM To: Greg Aaron <greg@illumintel.com<mailto:greg@illumintel.com>>; 'Sarah Wyld' <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>>; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks Greg et al - Sarahs’ Alt super powers expired at midnight yesterday and her laptop has now turned back in to a pumpkin. So I’ll respond to Greg and pose a few questions to ICANN Staff. Greg - In this case, Yes. “Addressed” = making the disclosure decision, and (if affirmative) providing the Requestor with the requested non-public data. For clarity, “provided” can mean that ICANN sends the data directly to the Requestor, or somehow causes another (contracted) party to transmit the data to the Requestor. Many EPDP members have expressed a desire to work with ICANN directly, rather than route requests to individual Contracted Parties. They would also prefer to have ICANN make the disclosure determination, as opposed to leaving this to the affected Contracted Party (please jump in if I’m misunderstanding/mischaracterizing this point). Therefore, the questions we (me, Sarah, Registrars, ePDP) would like to refer to our Staff Liaisons are: Does ICANN have a clear preference on whether or not it will: 1. Field these requests for non-public data 2. Maintain its own RDS replica database 3. Make a/the determination of the validity of the request 4. Assume responsibility for this decision, in any scenario where ICANN doesn’t hold the data directly and must require a Contracted Party to respond to the Requestor (even if the Contracted Party disputes ICANN’s determination). We have been dancing around these questions for a quite a while, and I now believe the answers stand between us and progress on our work. Either ICANN agrees to assume some/all of the role of decision-maker (and accept responsibility for making this decision), or we abandon the “centralized” version of SSAD and instead focus our efforts on developing a distributed model (which is expressly opposed by some “requestor” stakeholders). Either way, the is the fork in the road, and we need a clear path forward. If there are no further questions or objections, I recommend that Marika/Staff refer this to our liaisons. Thanks— J. _______________ James Bladel GoDaddy ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Aaron <greg@illumintel.com<mailto:greg@illumintel.com>> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 14:25 To: 'Sarah Wyld'; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks Notice:This email is from an external sender. When you say “addressed” what do you mean -- that ICANN decides whether the data should be disclosed in response to a query? From: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 11:16 AM To: Greg Aaron <greg@illumintel.com<mailto:greg@illumintel.com>>; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks Hi Greg, "Responding party" here would mean that requests are received and addressed by ICANN Org. This email focused specifically on questions raised by ICANN Org working in this capacity, I'm interested to see what other scenarios you could expect to occur here. Thanks. -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 On 9/19/2019 10:12 AM, Greg Aaron wrote: Sarah, what do you mean by “responding party”? For example so your scenarios assume that ICANN is acting in a specific legal capacity? I ask because depending on what you mean, there may be other scenarios. All best, --Greg From: Gnso-epdp-team<gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 3:18 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks Hello all, During the recent EPDP face-to-face meetings in Los Angeles, several members of the working group expressed a desire to position ICANN as the responding party to requests for disclosure of non-public registration data. In order to fulfill this request, one of two things must be true. Either: 1. ICANN Org maintains a current (<24 hours) copy of the entire RDS database; or 2. ICANN has some mechanism (contract clause) to compel the Contracted Party to disclose the data to ICANN or the requestor These potential scenarios raise the following questions: 1. In the first scenario, does ICANN accept the legal risks and operational costs of maintaining its own replica of all RDS data for gTLDs? If not, how would those risks and costs be addressed? 2. In the second scenario, will ICANN “relay” disclosed data between the requestor and the Registry/Registrar? 3. What should be done in situations where ICANN instructs the Registry/Registrar to disclose data (either to ICANN or the requestor), but the contracted party has determined that the request is not legitimate and refuses? Is this matter referred to ICANN compliance? Thank you, -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392