Hi, In follow-up on action item #2 from yesterday’s call, I’ve made a few edits to the 11 November document on Legal vs Natural Persons. The changes are meant to address what I tried to convey during yesterday’s call; that the real problem we are trying to solve isn’t a distinction between natural and legal persons, but rather how the personal information collected during the registration process is treated, and whether it concerns legal persons or natural persons. In my view, this is the real issue we’ve been trying to tackle, regardless of whether EPDP Team members believe that the distinction should be made via self-identification at the time of registration, or not, as well as whether EPDP Team members believe the distinction should be a requirement on the part of Registrars during the registration process, or optional. The questions we’re asking in the initial report on this issue also seem to me to be soliciting answers to that effect. It isn’t so much of whether the Registrant field in the RDDS indicates a legal or a natural person. The real issue is whether the personal information collected during the registration process concerns a legal or natural person, irrespective of how/if the RNH self-identifies as one or the other. Note that the excerpt from the EDPB letter already included in the document addresses the issue in that manner, so the changes I’m proposing only add consistency and accuracy to how I believe the EPDP Team should be framing the issue. This is also made clear in GDPR Recital 14, which states:
The protection afforded by this Regulation should apply to natural persons, whatever their nationality or place of residence, in relation to the processing of their personal data. This Regulation does not cover the processing of personal data which concerns legal persons and in particular undertakings established as legal persons, including the name and the form of the legal person and the contact details of the legal person.
When I proposed these changes during yesterday’s call, I thought of them as a friendly amendment of sorts - one that only helps to clarify the issue, and make it more visibly specific to the intended audience of the initial report. However, early reactions indicated a possibly different reception than I had anticipated. To be honest, I’m not clear why that is, and would welcome any views expressed along with rationale, whether in support or opposition of the proposed changes. Thanks. Amr