Hi Alex,
I actually read the letter a bit differently. You are correct
that it stresses the need for such a model, particulararly for law
enforcement and government agencies, but it does not state that
such a model is per se compliant with GDPR, but rather that care
must be taken that the model is compliant.
We cannot simply design any old model and call it compliant, the
model we design must comply with the principles I referred to in
my earlier mail to be compliant.
I do not doubt we will be able to design such a compliant model
though.
And believe me, I have talked to many at ICANN meetings and other venues who still believe that access to the UAM will mean full access. While I don't know whether such beliefs or hopes are also held by members here (I sure hope not), it would be helpful if we can agree on that as a basis.
Best,
Volker
Thanks Chris for forwarding these letters to the team. And thanks also to both ICANN org and the European Commission for this important input and very helpful clarification.
The EC letter makes it very clear that the development of a unified access model is not only vital, urgent and a matter of priority, but also that such a model would be fully in line with EU data protection rules (i.e., the GDPR). Clearly we have a lot of work to do to attain this goal and our main focus should be to chart a path (work plan, schedule, etc.) to achieve it and then get to work.
In response to these letters:
First, the IPC agrees completely that "ICANN and the contracted parties may enable access to and disclose registration data upon request from a third party showing a legitimate interest, provided both the controller - ICANN and/or the contracted parties - and the third party have a legal basis for such processing (see below)."
Second, we do not understand assertions that some are arguing for an "all-access" WHOIS model or that there exists a set of people who believe we can somehow return to unfettered WHOIS access. Spending time arguing against positions that do not exist in the ePDP is distracting and a waste of time.
Lastly, while we appreciate Volker’s suggestion to create shortcuts to save time, we do not agree that issues related to access for LEA should be prioritized ahead of issues related to other third party legitimate interests. LEA have their own processes for getting standardized access to data, which are different from the private sector. IP and consumer protection do not, and LEA access methods will not be particularly relevant in addressing these issues. To expeditiously complete a standardized access model, we should focus on answering the questions as outlined in the charter - and build a framework to accommodate standardized access for all legitimate interests in compliance with the law.
Regards,Alex
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:11 AM Chris Disspain <chris@disspain.uk> wrote:
_______________________________________________Hello All,
As you will know, on 26 April Göran Marby wrote to the European Commission seeking additional information regarding their comments of 17 April. That letter is attached for ease of reference.
A response has now been received from the Commission and I attach that for your information.
Cheers,
CD
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team