ICANN Org response - redaction of city field
Dear EPDP Team, Here is the ICANN Org response to the question why city field is redacted in the Temporary Specification: Regarding the EPDP Team’s question about why the City field is redacted in the Temp Spec, the Cookbook provides the following rationale: "The registrant’s state/province and country will be published, but the address fields that could be used to more specifically identify the registrant would not be included in the public WHOIS (e.g. street, city, postal code). This would enable non-accredited users to determine the registrant’s general location and likely jurisdiction but would generally not enable identification of the registrant”. The link to the Cookbook: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-compliance-interim-model-08.... The above quote is on page 26. The response will get posted on the relevant page on the wiki. 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...>.
It is clear from this response that ICANN legal advisors thought that including the city field would enable identification of the registrant. This is especially a problem in smaller city locations. The NCSG reiterates its strong support for continued redaction of the city field in the public Whois. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [igp email logo]<http://internetgovernance.org/> From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 12:51 PM To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] ICANN Org response - redaction of city field Dear EPDP Team, Here is the ICANN Org response to the question why city field is redacted in the Temporary Specification: Regarding the EPDP Team’s question about why the City field is redacted in the Temp Spec, the Cookbook provides the following rationale: "The registrant’s state/province and country will be published, but the address fields that could be used to more specifically identify the registrant would not be included in the public WHOIS (e.g. street, city, postal code). This would enable non-accredited users to determine the registrant’s general location and likely jurisdiction but would generally not enable identification of the registrant”. The link to the Cookbook: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-compliance-interim-model-08.... The above quote is on page 26. The response will get posted on the relevant page on the wiki. 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...>.
participants (2)
-
Marika Konings -
Mueller, Milton L