Dear All, We need to find sdome language which could get the agreement of all of us Pehaps AMR text could be further considred as the solution Regards Kavouss On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:13 AM Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team < gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
I’m still trying to come up with language for the first part of the recommendation that may address my concerns, Amr’s and Farzaneh’s.
In the meantime, my understanding about the rule set idea was similar to Farzaneh’s.
K
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *farzaneh badii *Sent:* Tuesday, January 29, 2019 9:03 AM *To:* Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> *Cc:* EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Geographic Basis - Recommendation for inclusion in the Final Report
Thanks Kurt.
I agree with Amr but I don't think Appendix A, section 2.1 and 3 should be included. Those clauses are not about Geo differentiation of "registrants" only.
Also I saw the draft final version of the report and there is no consensus to discuss the feasibility conditions and methodology for the development of a rule set, Milton also recorded our objection about this multiple times. Why did it end up in the recommendation again? I suggest deleting the "consider the feasibility ..." bullet point. If we want to dig this topic out again and waste hours of our time discuss whether to do a study on the feasibility of how to provide less data protection for those who are not located in the EU, then we can decide on that in phase 2.
Farzaneh
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
Hi Kurt,
Thanks for this. It seems fine to me, except that I’m not clear why we would wish for the final report to suggest that the EPDP Team *“agrees that contracted parties should be (and are) permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis”*.
The emphasis here is on the word “should”. I don’t believe this is accurate, as there have been a number of views expressed on why differentiation between registrants on a geographic basis should NOT be done. A few are mentioned in your email below, but several others are not. These might not have been brought up very recently, such as during the review of public comments. However, they certainly were in the discussions leading up to the publication of the initial report.
I believe there is still divergence within the EPDP Team on whether Contracted Parties should do anything at all in the context of this recommendation. Furthermore, the Temp Spec doesn’t indicate whether or not Contracted Parties *SHOULD* do anything here either. It only says that those Contracted Parties to whom section 2.1 of appendix A is applicable to *MUST* apply the requirements in sections 2 and 4 of the same appendix, and that those to whom section 3 of appendix A are applicable *MAY* do the same.
I would prefer that the recommendation be amended to simply say:
The EPDP Team recommends that the existing requirements of §§ 2.1 and 3 of *Appendix A of* the Temporary Specification remain in place, i.e., contracted parties should (and are) permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.
Based on the legal guidance that is provided on this topic:
- The EPDP Team may reconsider this recommendation in phase 2 of its work, an - Consider the feasibility conditions and methodology for the development of a rule set for making decisions on geographic distinctions.
In practically implementable terms, this achieves the same purpose of the recommendation language you proposed, without suggesting the EPDP Team has reached consensus on whether or not geo differentiation of registrants SHOULD be done.
Thanks.
Amr
On Jan 25, 2019, at 6:05 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
With the ongoing goal of progressing issues via email, the leadership and support teams have considered the review of public comment made during the recent plenary conference call and suggests the following language to capture the agreement in principle that was developed on making Geographic Distinctions.
Based on that discussion the recommendation below is proposed for EPDP Team consideration.
*Team Discussion*
The Initial Report did not contain a Recommendation for the handling of personal data based on geographical considerations. Instead, the Initial Report asked three questions so that the community input could provide a guide for the EPDP Teams deliberations leading to the Final Report. Those questions were:
h) Applicability of Data Processing Requirements
h1) Should Registry Operators and Registrars (“Contracted Parties”) be permitted or required to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis?
h2) Is there a legal basis for Contracted Parties to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis?
The EPDP Team considered the public comment and developed the following thoughts in its deliberations in addressing the charter questions:
- The EPDP Team discussed this extensively (as documented in the Initial Report) as well as in the context of the review on the public comments received on the Initial Report. In relation to part of charter question h1, the EPDP Team agrees that contracted parties should be (and are) permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis; - However, the EPDP Team members have divergent views on whether differentiation on a geographic basis should be required. - Recognizing that ICANN is a Data Controller in many scenarios and that ICANN may be considered “established” in Europe (within the meaning of the GDPR), the EPDP Team discussed whether those factors would have an effect upon the discussion and determining GDPR-compliant outcomes. It became clear that legal guidance in relation to the applicability of GDPR in the context of ICANN having an ‘establishment’ in Europe could further inform requirements. - The EPDP Team also discussed the possibility of developing a set of rules for guiding the making of geographical distinctions in an GDPR-compliant manner (akin to the EWG hypothesized “rules engine”). The Team agreed that creating this set of rules was a complex task (just as it would be for individual registrars) and agreed such development could not occur within the remit of this Phase I EPDP. Such a development would also be dependent on the response to the aforementioned legal guidance.
*EPDP Team Recommendation (a new recommendation as there was none in the Initial Report) * The EPDP Team recommends that the existing requirements of §§ 2.1 and 3 of the Temporary Specification remain in place, i.e., contracted parties should (and are) permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.
Based on the legal guidance that is provided on this topic:
- The EPDP Team may reconsider this recommendation in phase 2 of its work, an - Consider the feasibility conditions and methodology for the development of a rule set for making decisions on geographic distinctions.
*Action*
Please indicate on the mailing list whether you have any concerns about these modifications and/or what other aspects of this recommendation should be discussed. If there are additional questions for ICANN Compliance that would serve to inform the deliberations on this recommendation, please share these also.
Deadline: Tuesday, 29 January, additional email discussion might follow depending on responses.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ 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