All: I do not mind IPC/BC inserting stronger expressions of their views into the report, but I do think we need to avoid turning the interim report and call for comments into competing advocacy statements. The statement should summarize the positions taken, and identify areas where we need comment, that’s it. Therefore, the citation of data regarding ccTLDs, starting with “Indeed, 74% of the 19 EU ccTLD…” should be deleted – if the IPC and BC want to cite this data in their own public comments they can do so. Likewise, the paragraph Amr challenged about the EDPB should be deleted as it both makes a factually incorrect claim and misleadingly implies that EDPB supports their position. Indeed, the substance of this paragraph insofar as it is meaningful only repeats what was already stated, namely that there is a legal distinction between the treatment of legal and natural persons in most privacy laws. I also agree with Amr that the final questions posed are somewhat biased. A better way to fix this is to add the following additional questions: 1. What risks to natural persons’ privacy that would occur if registrars were required to try to segregate legal and natural persons at the point of registration? 2. What additional costs and risks to registrars and registries that would occur if they were required to try to segregate legal and natural persons at the point of registration? 3. Given that the process of distinguishing between legal and natural persons will not be perfect or costless, and that some legal persons would inevitably self-identify as natural persons and vice-versa, what would be the net benefit of requiring such a distinction? From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 6:38 AM To: Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - updated language natural vs. legal Hi, Just a couple of small things on the proposed IPC/BC edits, then another (unrelated) proposed addition to the bulleted questions list. First, The IPC/BC state in the proposed edits that the EDPB suggested the use of “role email address”, which I assume refers to the “generic contact email information” mentioned in the EDPB’s July 2018 letter to ICANN. The IPC/BC proposed edits continue to claim that the EPDP Team has not considered this option, when in fact we did. The EDPB letter explains that the use of “generic contact email information” for natural persons acting on behalf of legal persons in the registration process has to somehow be ensured by Registrars. I thought that this was one of the mitigating measures discussed, and found to be unrealistic to achieve? I suggest that we drop the statement saying we did not explore this option. It might also be helpful to readers of the report to have some guidance on what is meant by “role email address”. Second, I don’t see the necessity in the IPC/BC trying to characterize the NCSG and CPs positions on whether risks associated with legal vs natural person distinction are issues that we have identified, or whether they are simply views we hold. Surely this is something that can be addressed by the IPC/BC (or others) in the course of the public comment process itself? For now, we believe that we have identified risks, and would like them to be presented as such - identified risks. If these risks weren’t considerably serious, then why are the questions being asked of readers of the report basically exclusively aimed at mitigating them? Which brings me to another issue (the more important one imo) unrelated to the IPC/BC input: The Charter questions dealing with legal vs natural persons are h3, h4 and h5. The answer to h4 seems to be settled, but there have obviously been many challenges in getting any consensus on h3 and h5. However, the 4 bulleted questions to which the EPDP Team is requesting input on (as mentioned above) are exclusively directed to soliciting feedback on how to mitigate the risks identified by the NCSG and CPH. They are asked in a manner that suggests that the objective of the EPDP Team on this issue is to find a way to make legal vs natural person distinctions happen, and that we need the public readers of our initial report to help us achieve this goal. Of course, we all know that this is not true, so I am asking that a fifth bullet question be added, but that it be placed at the top of the list of questions. This question needs to address the threshold Charter question on this issue in h3, which is whether the distinction should be made to begin with. Something to this effect, perhaps: “Should the EPDP Team recommend that Contracted Parties be allowed or required to treat legal and natural persons differently? Please provide rationale to your response.” I know the question is pretty much a repetition to the Charter question h3, but important to be placed at the top of the bulleted list of issues the EPDP is seeking input on. Thanks. Amr On Nov 10, 2018, at 3:03 AM, Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Hi, Here is a redline from the IPC and BC on the legal/natural persons language. Happy Friday! Alex On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:46 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Per action item #2 from today’s meeting (Support Staff will rework language for natural vs. legal persons and send to the mailing list so that EPDP Team members can include and/or correct their own viewpoints. Please propose edits by tomorrow, Friday, 9 November.), please find attached the updated language. On pages 1-3 you can find the clean version, on pages 4-6 the redline, for those interested. For those that expressed an interest to add their view points to this language, please share your proposed additions by Friday 9 November COB. These additions are expected to be added to the yellow highlighted part of the text. 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@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_gns...>. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team -- ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 <Natural vs legal - updated version - 8 Nov 2018 - IPC and BC Redline.docx>