- Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy - lists.icann.org

Checklist and summaries
by David Cake April 7, 2016

April 7, 2016

Staff has helpfully prepared a checklist of documents for the team so far, which is attached. I’ve very much appreciated the contribution of those who have suggested additional documents, and please feel free to suggest more, but with an eye to wrapping up this work fairly quickly, we should begin to focus more on summarisation of documents. You can see on this checklist there are quite a few still to be summarised. We will further be talking about this on todays call. Please volunteer to summarise documents if you can. Summaries should be short and to the point, and your summary should include which aspects of that document you feel are relevant to privacy considerations and why (some documents may also be relevant to other aspects of the WGs work). If you disagree with a summary presented by another, please don’t try to engage in prolonged discussion on the WG - if you think the summary is misleading or lacking please attempt your own summary and we can attempt some synthesis, if you have a more substantive issue then it is probably best addressed during deliberations of the entire WG. Regards David

6 7

Privacy Team Checklist - 7 April
by Lisa Phifer April 7, 2016

April 7, 2016

Hello all, Another updated privacy team checklist (attached) has been posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/p4xlAw Just follow the link above if you're looking for the latest daily update of any team's checklist. The privacy team's list includes many documents that have been identified but still need volunteers to summarize them: * 2013 RAA's <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#dat…>Data Retention Specification Waiver and <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-data-retention-spec-eleme…>Discussion Document (2014) * <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986688>WHOIS Studies (2012-2014) , especially <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm>WHOIS Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study and <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-feasibility-survey…>WHOIS Privacy/Proxy Relay and Reveal Survey * <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-055-en.pdf>SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant (September 2012) * Article 29 WP statement on the data protection impact of the ICANN RAA (2013-2014) * Article 29 WP on ICANN's WHOIS Database Policy (2006) * Additional Article 29 WP documents that may be of interest to this PDP WG (4) * Council of Europe <https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Decl%2803.06.2015%292>Declaration of Committee of Ministers on ICANN, human rights and the rule of law (3 June 2015) * <http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/trea…>Council of Europe's Treaty 108 on Data Protection * <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/160229_en.htm>European Commission News Announcement: EU-US Privacy Shield * <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al14012>European Data Protection Directive, 1995 * <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/newsletters/privacy-proxy-registratio…>NORC Study of WHOIS Privacy/Proxy Prevalence (2010) * <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS, especially Sections 6 & 7 * EWG Research:<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43982771/Memo%20to%20EWG%2…> Data Protection Considerations Applicable to Collection of gTLD Reg Data Memo * EWG Research: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/45744698/EWG%20PP%20PROVID…>WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Practices Survey * <http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-ewg-final-overview/presentation-e…>EWG Tutorial Pages 28-30 and <https://community.icann.org/display/EWG/EWG+FAQs>EWG FAQs 31-38 * Statements/Blogs by <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141105_how_to_improve_whois_data_accuracy/>Ajayi and <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/perrin-statement-24jun14-en.pdf>Perrin * <https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/Process+Framework>Process Framework for a PDP on Next-Generation RDS, Page 9, Row 5 * <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Privacy/A-HRC-31-64.doc>Human Rights Council - Report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy * EU Court of Justice Judgements that may apply to gTLDs (2 examples on checklist) * Relevant National Laws or Court Rulings that may apply to gTLDs (2 examples on checklist) * <https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/governance-privacy>Governance of Privacy: Policy Instruments in Global Perspective (MIT Press 2006) Although some, such as Article 29 correspondence and SAC055, are being reviewed by other teams to summarize aspects relating specifically to RDS data elements and purpose, it falls to the privacy team to summarize aspects of these documents that deal with data protection laws and privacy. If you'd like to review and summarize any of these remaining docs, please reply to this message. Best, Lisa

2 1

Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy] Privacy Team Checklist - 6 April
by Stephanie Perrin April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

That is a great line, Ayden, I totally agree and I snort about electronic fees so often that I am now an old curmudgeon clinging stubbornly to paper. I won't tell you how long my hard copy of Graham's book has sat on my study couch, where I can get a pennysworth of enjoyment every day I look at it, at least. (I am not getting through it anytime soon, at 577 pages) Fav chapter for our purposes is, in my view, Chapter 3, Standards by which to assess a Country's Data Privacy Laws. Now that is not much help in predicting how a country will find with respect to the question of WHOIS, but it shows those unfamiliar with DP law what scholars look for in assessing a framework. I would note that much later on, he analyses the Bennett and Raab prediction re race to the top, race to the bottom, and finds in fact high standards in Asian law. One thing you could do, as the index is v unhelpful in looking for keywords like ICAnn and WHOIS and public registry, is do a scan when you get your hands on the electronic version. i would love to know if he has found any cases on WHOIS. thanks! Stephanie On 2016-04-06 19:06, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > The LSE is kind enough to grant alumni access to e-books, so I have > access to the full text you mentioned (Asian Data Privacy Laws: Trade > & Human Rights Perspectives). I can summarise a few chapters, though I > wouldn't be able to do so until mid next week. If you have the > contents page handy, might you be able to suggest which chapter(s) I > should summarise? That being said, I think the point you alluded to, > though — that we, as a Working Group, should all have the same access > to review in full the texts we are summarising — is a very valid one. > I think the Guardian put it best when they said, “academic publishers > make Murdoch look like a socialist.” £74.75 for 24 hours access to > that text, which was probably funded through government research > grants and academic stipends? It hardly seems justifiable… > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 6:09 PM, Stephanie Perrin via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy > gnso-rds-pdp-privacy(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org> > wrote: > > Yes it certainly clears up the redundancy that I thought I > saw....I figured one reference is enough as the links are all > there, but whatever you like.ï¿½ Not sure the article adds a whole > pile to our understanding but I am immersed in this stuff.ï¿½ And > yes, there is an ebook but the price point is (IMHO) a bit nutty > and I did not think you could just buy one chapter.ï¿½ I am old > fashioned, I like the book in my hand.... > I can of course siphon off one chapter through my uni library but > this is not cricket, so thought I would ask Graham how he felt > about sharing it. He may also, being prolific, have spun that work > off in an article we could find somewhere (not me, not now) > Thanks again Lisa! > cheers steph > On 2016-04-06 12:58, Lisa Phifer wrote: >> Thanks Stephanie. I had noticed that Kathy suggested the same >> Greenleaf book that you had, but thought it important to add the >> article about the tables also cited by Kathy. That's why the >> checklist contains both: >> >> * Global Tables (2015, abstract and PDF download here: >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2603502 >> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2603502>) and >> >> * Article about the Global Tables (2015, abstract and PDF >> download here: >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2603529 >> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2603529>) >> >> Please let me know if that doesn't clear up the apparent >> redundancy. No doubt it would be useful for the same person to >> review/summarize both together for the privacy team, since the >> article discusses recent updates to the table and the trends >> behind them. >> >> FYI, Greenleaf's 2014 book is available commercially as an e-book >> - see https://books.google.com/books?id=0eAuBQAAQBAJ >> <https://books.google.com/books?id=0eAuBQAAQBAJ> . Since we don't >> have public access to it, perhaps you could summarize the chapter >> you found useful? Doing that now would at least help the WG >> remember this resource exists when the time comes for detailed >> analysis of privacy laws. >> >> Best, Lisa >> >> >> At 09:23 AM 4/6/2016, Stephanie Perrin via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy >> wrote: >>> Thanks Lisa, there is a redundancy, in that the global table I >>> sent you (SSRN article by Greenleaf) is the same as the one >>> Kathy resent which appears below it.ï¿½ >>> In his 2014 book on asian privacy laws, which I did not send as >>> it is hardcover only, there is an excellent chapter on how to >>> evaluate/compare privacy laws, which has always been a puzzle >>> for WHOIS discussions.ï¿½ I could summarize that but probably >>> not distribute a scanned copy, however graham is a great >>> advocate for access so if interested I could pester him and see >>> if he has an electronic version. >>> cheers stephanie >>> >>> On 2016-04-06 10:39, Lisa Phifer via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy wrote: >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> Today's updated privacy team checklist (attached) was just >>>> posted to the wiki at: >>>> https://community.icann.org/x/p4xlAw >>>> <https://community.icann.org/x/p4xlAw> >>>> >>>> Just follow the link above if you're looking for the latest >>>> daily update of any team's checklist. >>>> >>>> In today's checklist update, to make it clearer which docs are >>>> not yet assigned, I have removed the ? names from the "Reviewed >>>> by" column. As you can see, there are still plenty of docs >>>> identified by this team over the past week or so that could >>>> still use volunteers to review them. For those not certain how >>>> much work is involved: summaries should be concise - for >>>> example, "executive summaries" that point the WG to the >>>> portions of the document most relevant to RDS privacy and why. >>>> >>>> Best, Lisa >>>> >>>> >>>> At 11:49 AM 4/5/2016, David Cake via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Please find attached a summary of the proposed plan to finish >>>>> the sub-teams input summarising work as presented on todays >>>>> call. Weï¿½?Td like to get this document summarising work done >>>>> (of course, we know other relevant documents may be published >>>>> from here on, but we can handle those as the come) so we can >>>>> get back to full WG mode and start proceeding with the rest of >>>>> the work plan. >>>>> >>>>> So what we are asking of you now is: >>>>> >>>>> Please look at the input checklist provided, choose at least >>>>> one input (ideally one that has not been looked at yet) that >>>>> you are wiling to summarise, and email the whole group to let >>>>> them know that you are working on it. Aim to have these >>>>> summaries done by Monday. >>>>> Please try to do this by the end of Wednesday. >>>>> >>>>> This doesnï¿½?Tt mean that we are necessarily done with >>>>> identification of new inputs - if you have someone else >>>>> valuable to add, feel free to continue to do so. But the focus >>>>> should now be on summarising what we have. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list >>>>> Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy(a)icann.org >>>>> <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy >>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list >>>> Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list >>> Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy >>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy> > > > Ayden Férdeline > +44.77.8018.7421 >

1 0

Privacy Team Checklist - 6 April
by Lisa Phifer April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Hello all, Today's updated privacy team checklist (attached) was just posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/p4xlAw Just follow the link above if you're looking for the latest daily update of any team's checklist. In today's checklist update, to make it clearer which docs are not yet assigned, I have removed the ? names from the "Reviewed by" column. As you can see, there are still plenty of docs identified by this team over the past week or so that could still use volunteers to review them. For those not certain how much work is involved: summaries should be concise - for example, "executive summaries" that point the WG to the portions of the document most relevant to RDS privacy and why. Best, Lisa At 11:49 AM 4/5/2016, David Cake via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy wrote: >Please find attached a summary of the proposed >plan to finish the sub-teams input summarising >work as presented on todays call. Weâd like to >get this document summarising work done (of >course, we know other relevant documents may be >published from here on, but we can handle those >as the come) so we can get back to full WG mode >and start proceeding with the rest of the work plan. > >So what we are asking of you now is: > >Please look at the input checklist provided, >choose at least one input (ideally one that has >not been looked at yet) that you are wiling to >summarise, and email the whole group to let them >know that you are working on it. Aim to have these summaries done by Monday. >Please try to do this by the end of Wednesday. > >This doesnât mean that we are necessarily done >with identification of new inputs - if you have >someone else valuable to add, feel free to >continue to do so. But the focus should now be on summarising what we have. > > >David > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list >Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy

4 8

Fwd: Privacy Team Checklist - 6 April
by Ayden Fabien Férdeline April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Hi Stephanie, The LSE is kind enough to grant alumni access to e-books, so I have access to the full text you mentioned (Asian Data Privacy Laws: Trade & Human Rights Perspectives). I can summarise a few chapters, though I wouldn't be able to do so until mid next week. If you have the contents page handy, might you be able to suggest which chapter(s) I should summarise? That being said, I think the point you alluded to, though — that we, as a Working Group, should all have the same access to review in full the texts we are summarising — is a very valid one. I think the Guardian put it best when they said, “academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist.” £74.75 for 24 hours access to that text, which was probably funded through government research grants and academic stipends? It hardly seems justifiable… Best wishes, Ayden P.S. Apologies if you receive this message twice - I think my first attempt at emailing the list was rejected, because I replied from the wrong email account. On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 6:09 PM, Stephanie Perrin via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy gnso-rds-pdp-privacy(a)icann.org wrote: Yes it certainly clears up the redundancy that I thought I saw....I figured one reference is enough as the links are all there, but whatever you like.ï¿½ Not sure the article adds a whole pile to our understanding but I am immersed in this stuff.ï¿½ And yes, there is an ebook but the price point is (IMHO) a bit nutty and I did not think you could just buy one chapter.ï¿½ I am old fashioned, I like the book in my hand.... I can of course siphon off one chapter through my uni library but this is not cricket, so thought I would ask Graham how he felt about sharing it. He may also, being prolific, have spun that work off in an article we could find somewhere (not me, not now) Thanks again Lisa! cheers steph On 2016-04-06 12:58, Lisa Phifer wrote: Thanks Stephanie. I had noticed that Kathy suggested the same Greenleaf book that you had, but thought it important to add the article about the tables also cited by Kathy. That's why the checklist contains both: * Global Tables (2015, abstract and PDF download here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2603502 ) and * Article about the Global Tables (2015, abstract and PDF download here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2603529 ) Please let me know if that doesn't clear up the apparent redundancy. No doubt it would be useful for the same person to review/summarize both together for the privacy team, since the article discusses recent updates to the table and the trends behind them. FYI, Greenleaf's 2014 book is available commercially as an e-book - see https://books.google.com/books?id=0eAuBQAAQBAJ . Since we don't have public access to it, perhaps you could summarize the chapter you found useful? Doing that now would at least help the WG remember this resource exists when the time comes for detailed analysis of privacy laws. Best, Lisa At 09:23 AM 4/6/2016, Stephanie Perrin via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy wrote: Thanks Lisa, there is a redundancy, in that the global table I sent you (SSRN article by Greenleaf) is the same as the one Kathy resent which appears below it.ï¿½ In his 2014 book on asian privacy laws, which I did not send as it is hardcover only, there is an excellent chapter on how to evaluate/compare privacy laws, which has always been a puzzle for WHOIS discussions.ï¿½ I could summarize that but probably not distribute a scanned copy, however graham is a great advocate for access so if interested I could pester him and see if he has an electronic version. cheers stephanie On 2016-04-06 10:39, Lisa Phifer via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy wrote: Hello all, Today's updated privacy team checklist (attached) was just posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/p4xlAw Just follow the link above if you're looking for the latest daily update of any team's checklist. In today's checklist update, to make it clearer which docs are not yet assigned, I have removed the ? names from the “Reviewed by” column. As you can see, there are still plenty of docs identified by this team over the past week or so that could still use volunteers to review them. For those not certain how much work is involved: summaries should be concise - for example, “executive summaries” that point the WG to the portions of the document most relevant to RDS privacy and why. Best, Lisa At 11:49 AM 4/5/2016, David Cake via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy wrote: Please find attached a summary of the proposed plan to finish the sub-teams input summarising work as presented on todays call. Weï¿½?Td like to get this document summarising work done (of course, we know other relevant documents may be published from here on, but we can handle those as the come) so we can get back to full WG mode and start proceeding with the rest of the work plan. So what we are asking of you now is: Please look at the input checklist provided, choose at least one input (ideally one that has not been looked at yet) that you are wiling to summarise, and email the whole group to let them know that you are working on it. Aim to have these summaries done by Monday. Please try to do this by the end of Wednesday. This doesnï¿½?Tt mean that we are necessarily done with identification of new inputs - if you have someone else valuable to add, feel free to continue to do so. But the focus should now be on summarising what we have. David _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy Ayden Férdeline +44.77.8018.7421 Ayden Férdeline +44.77.8018.7421

1 0

Proposed plan and current status
by David Cake April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

Please find attached a summary of the proposed plan to finish the sub-teams input summarising work as presented on todays call. We’d like to get this document summarising work done (of course, we know other relevant documents may be published from here on, but we can handle those as the come) so we can get back to full WG mode and start proceeding with the rest of the work plan. So what we are asking of you now is: Please look at the input checklist provided, choose at least one input (ideally one that has not been looked at yet) that you are wiling to summarise, and email the whole group to let them know that you are working on it. Aim to have these summaries done by Monday. Please try to do this by the end of Wednesday. This doesn’t mean that we are necessarily done with identification of new inputs - if you have someone else valuable to add, feel free to continue to do so. But the focus should now be on summarising what we have. David

3 2

Template for Privacy team output
by David Cake April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

To coordinate our work, staff have created a Template that suggests the form our output should take, and that includes a list of the many documents already suggested as relevant to this teams work. It is attached to this message. Please note that the list of documents is quite extensive already - which certainly doesn’t mean we can’t add more. I’d like volunteers to start looking at documents added and summarising some of their contents. Summaries should focus on describing its relevance to our work, and the questions it addresses, rather than opinions about the substantive issues it covers. Regards David

8 12

Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy] [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Purpose sub team
by Stephanie Perrin March 31, 2016

March 31, 2016

Kudos to you for doing all that work Susan! It is quite a tome. I would like to note that the EWG did not address the purpose of registration data collection, use and disclosure. As the lone privacy expert there, I objected rather strenuously to this approach (i.e. going straight to use cases) but was overruled. I would also like to note that the RAA negotiations, which had not concluded, were considered out of scope. In my view, it is folly to try to determine the desirability, scope, and structure of a potential new RDS whilst ignoring the fact that the RAA, as the instrument developed by the Data Controller (ICANN) to enforce the collection, use, disclosure and retention of data on the part of registrars (the data processors) was going on in a separate activity. As a newbie recruit who had a full time job (I was using my accumulated vacation and evenings to work on the EWG as a volunteer) I regret that I did not become aware of what was going on with the RAA negotiations until the deal was announced. Most unfortunate, but I was not a member of any stakeholder group at the time and if anyone told me it slipped right by with all the other masses of info I was trying to absorb. Had I known, I would have objected until the matters under discussion in the RAA were at least discussed in the group. Therefore I would say that the EWG report needs to be viewed with the following strong caveats: 1. the actual purpose of the collection, use, disclosure, and retention of personal data was not discussed, we enumerated existing uses and voted on whether they were permissible. This is fundamentally different, although it sounds the same. Absent a purpose of the actual initial collection of registration data, as the DPAs have been telling ICANN since 2000, one cannot determine whether the uses that have sprung up are permissible. 2. the initial report was a far cry from the final report, which has not received the comment of the community. It is therefore the product of a substantially non-transparent process where there was a deficit in civil society participation. (I carry the burden of being a large part of that deficit, ignorant as I was of ICANN process and history) Others who participated in the EWG will likely disagree with me, but this is my considered view. The report must be taken with a pound of salt. The dissent that I wrote on it was only on a few important privacy issues, but in terms of substance and process, there are many other issues. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-03-31 12:53, Susan Kawaguchi via gnso-rds-pdp-purpose wrote: > Thank you Susan! This is exactly what we are looking for in gathering > reference information. I will make sure it is included in our > document to summarize. > Susan Kawaguchi > Domain Name Manager > Facebook Legal Dept. > > > From: "Prosser, Susan" <susan(a)domaintools.com > <mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> > Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:48 PM > To: Susan kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>>, > "gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>" > <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Purpose sub team > > Hello Susan, > I opted to review the EWG Final report as it seemed most relevant to > our discussion. I kept to the strict perspective of purpose only, not > delving into access, justification, methodology, etc as that will be > discussed in the group. If this needs expansion, please let me know. > > EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>, > especially > > - Section 3, Users and Purposes > > /“//Although the EWG did not attempt to identify all possible use > cases, it endeavoured to explore a representative sample in hopes of > rigorously identifying kinds of users and their purposes in wanting > access to gTLD registration data. However, the RDS must be designed > with the ability to accommodate new users and permissible purposes > that are likely to emerge over time.” //(Page 26)/// > > The EWG’s did summarize "permissible" purposes the EWG identified at > the time. The purposes identified are listed below. For brevity of > email, I did not include the full definitions. They can be found > in Section III, Table 2 Purpose Definitions, Pages 26-27. > > _Purpose_: > > Domain Name Control > > Personal Data Protection > > Technical Issue Resolution > > Domain Name Certification > > Individual Internet Use > > Business Domain Name Purchase or Sale > > Academic / Public Interest DNS Research > > Legal Actions > > Regulatory and Contractual Enforcement > > Criminal Investigation & DNS Abuse Mitigation > > DNS Transparency > > > It should be noted the EWG identified an additional purpose, Malicious > Internet Activities, which it did not further include in the > "permissible" purposes. > > - Annex C, Example Use Cases > > Using the same permissible purpose listing provided in Section III, > Annex C included examples of specific uses for clarity. For example > Domain Name Control is required in registration and transfer, among > other purposes OR Regulatory and Contractual Enforcement for UDRP > proceeding and Tax investigations. The full list of example use cases > along with a specific example of Technical Issue Resolution purpose is > available on Pages 126-128. > > - Annex A, Board Questions > > Annex A, Board Questions, Pages 123-124 > > /“The Board resolution that directed the EWG’s work included a series > of specific questions to be answered as it conducted its analysis. > This Annex references the sections of this Report that address the > Board’s concerns.”/ > > > The initial question presented to EWG was by the Board was: > > EWG to redefine the purpose of: > > • collecting, > > • maintaining, and > > • providing access to gTLD registration data, and > > • consider safeguards for protecting data > > > This was addressed in Section III, Users & Purposes and Section VI, > Improving Accountability (presented above in email) > > In addition, Section III addressed the following Board Questions that > were around use and purpose of data. I included them as a reference > point to raise awareness of Board concerns in clarifying various use > cases and purposes: > > * Why are data collected? > * Who needs the data and why? > * Law enforcement access to details about a domain name registration? > * Intellectual property owner access to details about a domain name > registration? > * Security practitioner access to details about a domain name > registration? > * What value does the public realize with access to registration data? > * What comprises a legitimate law enforcement need? > * What registration data and to what level of accuracy comprises > valuable information to a law enforcement agent that is looking > for the real identity of the responsible party? > * Is the desired domain name registration data access consistent > with access that intellectual property owners have to similar > types of data in other industries? > * Of all the registration data available, what does an intellectual > property owner need access to? > > A separate question: What purpose will the data serve? Was addressed > in ANNEX D: PURPOSES AND DATA NEEDS, Pages 129-132 > > Annex D defined the registration data element and mapped it to > Purposes defined by EWG in Section III, Table 2 with Section VI(a) > Data Elements. This reference is useful for specific currently > defined registration data elements purposes. > > > Please let me know if you need clarity on my review. > > -Susan > > * > > > > > ~~~~ > Susan Prosser > VP, Client Services > DomainTools, LLC > > T: (206) 838-9060 > E: susan(a)domaintools.com <mailto:susan@domaintools.com> > PGP: A2C4D2A4 > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Susan Kawaguchi via > gnso-rds-pdp-purpose <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> wrote: > > Hi Kathy, > > Absolutely NOT saying that we are bound to purposes created for > the OLD system as a full working group. I am saying that Chuck > has asked us as a sub team to look at the purposes identified in > all the resources on the wiki and summarize what the FULL working > group should look at and review. His direction was in hopes that > we can help the full working group to come up to speed with the > history and as you have said it is “instructive". If you have new > ideas or other sources previously unidentified we can note those > and add those to the summary but we cannot debate these issues as > a sub team. We need to reserve that discussion for the full > working group. > > > I will add the following to list to summarize. > Accordingly, I would like to submit the following principles from > the website above to this subgroup and to the WG as a whole: > that our domain name registration data must be: > "collected for explicit and legitimate purposes and used > accordingly" AND > "adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes > for which it is collected and/or further processed. > There are of course other principles, but these are foundation > ones directly related to our current work finding what we need to > evaluate "purpose.” > Source: /Obligations of data controllers, > /http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/data-collection/obligations/index_en.htm > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_da…> > Best, > Susan Kawaguchi > Domain Name Manager > Facebook Legal Dept. > > > From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> > Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:06 PM > To: Susan kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>>, > "gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>" > <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Purpose sub team > > Susan, > Let me understand what you are saying. Although we are designing a > NEW system (the "RDS") we are bound in our evaluation and outlook > by purposes created (reverse engineered really) for the OLD > system? I am not sure that makes sense. > > I respectfully submit again: We are the very first PDP WG in the > history of ICANN to work together to rethink and redesign the > Whois system -- the new "RDS." *Thus, it falls to /us /to ask and > answer the question of _what is th__e __purpose for whi__ch the > registra__tion data is collection?_ > > *Drawing from principles on the European Commission's website, > specifically /"Obligation of data controllers," /for this > evaluation, it seems clear we need to understand /the //purpose > /for which the data is collected -- in 2016, not necessarily 2002, > 2006 or 2012. Earlier discussions may be instructive or > persuasive, but this is a new evaluation for a new system, right? > > Accordingly, I would like to submit the following principles from > the website above to this subgroup and to the WG as a whole: > that our domain name registration data must be: > "collected for explicit and legitimate purposes and used > accordingly" AND > "adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes > for which it is collected and/or further processed. > There are of course other principles, but these are foundation > ones directly related to our current work finding what we need to > evaluate "purpose." > > I look forward to discussing with all. > Source: /Obligations of data controllers, > /http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/data-collection/obligations/index_en.htm > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_da…> > > Best, > Kathy > > > On 3/30/2016 12:30 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: >> Thanks Kathy, our work in the sub team is to summarize the >> existing identified purposes for the whole WG to discuss and >> debate. Some of your email below will be useful in that full >> debate. >> >> Please identify any data you would like to include in the summary >> by pasting relevant sections and highlighting. That way staff >> and I can put it into the template document. >> >> Once this sub team has collected all the information that we >> determine is relevant then we will work on summarizing the data >> for the full WG. >> Susan Kawaguchi >> Domain Name Manager >> Facebook Legal Dept. >> >> >> From: <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces(a)icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of >> Kathy Kleiman via gnso-rds-pdp-purpose >> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> >> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com >> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >> Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 8:44 PM >> To: "gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>" >> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Purpose sub team >> >> Hi Susan and All, >> I appreciate the goal of this sub-group - to delve into the >> "purpose" of the registration data being collected by the >> registrars when a gTLD domain name is registered. Unfortunately, >> few of the documents below shed much light on this question. The >> reason why is ICANN inherited the WHOIS/domain name registration >> system from the US Government and National Science Foundation. >> WHOIS was created in the 1980s when all of the information >> included (except the name of the person) was business information >> - a business address (e.g., at Harvard IT), a business phone, a >> business fax. >> >> We are the very first PDP WG in the history of ICANN to work >> together to rethink and redesign the Whois system -- the new >> "RDS." Thus it falls to *us *to answer the question of what is >> the primary purpose for which the registration data is collected, >> and what data we collect for this new system is *"adequate, >> relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which >> it is collected and/or further processed." >> *http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/data-collection/obligations/index_en.htm >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_da…> >> >> That's the hard work for us ahead. I would suggest that the >> purpose of domain name registration data is to register a domain >> name technically and operationally within the global DNS. >> >> Further, I note that secondary uses of the data, no matter how >> valuable, cannot drive or change the primary purpose of the data >> collection. In one of the letters in our repository below, sent >> by Peter Schaar (then Data Protection commission of German and >> Chair of the Article 29 Working Party of Data Protection >> Commissioners created under the EU Privacy Directive) warned >> ICANN that consideration of purpose for this data is "an >> extremely delicate matter" and "can not be extended to other >> purposes just because they are considered useful by some >> potential users of the directories." 2006 - >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/schaar-to-cerf-22jun06-en.pdf >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >> >> In light of this warning,I submit that the sentence in the >> materials below is mislabeled: "/Purpose: >> //https://community.icann.org/x/YIxlAw >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>/". >> When I access this link, it leads to the question “Who should >> have access to gTLD registration data and why?” (not "what is the >> primary purpose for which the data is collected.") This is a key >> confusion - and I would ask that it be re-labeled. >> >> But in the process, it raises the key question before us: /what >> is the primary purpose for which the registration data is >> collected //and used /versus /what are the secondary purposes to >> which the registration data might also be applied/? I am not >> saying we have to answer this question, but I am saying that >> Commissioner Schaar's letter as well as other letters and >> materials below indicate that there are key "purpose" questions, >> raise issues that lie at the heart of the work of this sub-group, >> and, if discussed, will allow us to provide important clarity and >> guidance to our larger WG. >> >> I note that there are people with far more experience than I >> have, with data protection laws generally and in drafting >> national data protection laws, in particular. I look forward to >> their guidance - and that of our subgroup overall. >> >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> On 3/28/2016 6:49 PM, Susan Kawaguchi via gnso-rds-pdp-purpose wrote: >>> Thanks all for beginning the work of digging into the resource >>> materials helping to summarize the data. ICANN staff has >>> prepared a template and reference document for our review of all >>> the sources that have identified purposes of registration data. >>> >>> Please take a look at the document. >>> >>> They have defined our first task below. We simply want to >>> identify sections of these documents that our subteam recommends >>> all the WG members read. >>> >>> *_Synopsis of Key Input Documents: >>> _*/[For each document identified by the small team as most >>> helpful, a single paragraph to help educate the full WG. For >>> example, highlighting sections that this small team recommends >>> every WG member read in order to better understand the Question >>> and/or dependencies with between Questions. While this is NOT >>> intended to limit the WG’s consideration of additional or future >>> inputs, it should serve as an indexed a starting point for all >>> WG members to familiarize themselves with each Question and its >>> history.]/ >>> >>> >>> In the attached template is a link to all the documents on the >>> wiki that may be relevant. (if there are others not on the wiki >>> please send to the group) It would be helpful to have each sub >>> team member pick one or two of the resources to identify the >>> sections that useful. After we have done that the next step >>> will be to summarize this information but I would like to focus >>> on identification of the resource material first. >>> >>> For ease of reference list of the resource documents below. >>> >>> *_Input Documents that the WG should at minimum consider when >>> addressing this Question: >>> _*/[Hyper-linked list of all key input documents for this >>> Question, noting which of these documents were considered most >>> helpful by the small team when creating the concise summary >>> below. Small teams may identify both existing and additional >>> inputs. However, to minimize duplication of effort, small teams >>> should be sure to include the key inputs already posted on the >>> WG's wiki: / >>> >>> ·/Purpose: //https://community.icann.org/x/YIxlAw >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>/ >>> >>> ·/All: >>> //https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986688 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa…>/ >>> >>> / >>> A starter list is provided below from the WG’s wiki to be >>> reviewed and refined by this small team]/ >>> >>> ·WHOIS Task Force Final Report >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_g…>(2007) >>> >>> ·WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >>> (2012) >>> >>> ·SAC055, WHOIS: Blind Men and an Elephant >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> (September >>> 2012) >>> >>> ·GAC Communiqués >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gacweb.icann.org_displ…> >>> regarding WHOIS (2007-2015), especially >>> >>> -GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Services >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__whois.icann.org_en_link…> >>> (2007) >>> >>> ·/[Note: All Article 29 inputs identified thus far are listed >>> below, but *this team may wish to focus on purpose aspects* >>> since data protection inputs will be summarized by privacy team.]/ >>> >>> ·Article 29 WP statement on the data protection impact of the >>> ICANN RAA (2013-2014) >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/namazi-to-kohnstamm-25… >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kohnstamm-to-jeffrey-0… >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-kohnstamm-2… >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>-- >>> en.pdf >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kohnstamm-to-crocker-c… >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >>> >>> ·Article 29 WP comments on the data protection impact of the >>> revision of the ICANN RAA concerning accuracy and data retention >>> of WHOIS (2012) >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kohnstamm-to-crocker-a… >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >>> - >>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/chehade-to-kohnstamm-09oct12-en >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_news_…> >>> >>> ·Article 29 WP on ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts >>> with Privacy Law (2007) >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_corre…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/cerf-to-schaar-24oct07.pdf >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_corre…> >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cerf-to-schaar-15mar07-en.pdf >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >>> - >>> https://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/schaar-to-cerf-12mar07.pdf >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_corre…> >>> >>> ·Article 29 WP on ICANN’s WHOIS Database Policy (2006) >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/schaar-to-cerf-22jun06-en.pdf >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_corre…>https://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/lawson-to-cerf-22jun06.pdf >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_corre…> >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_corre…>https://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/parisse-to-icann-22jun06.pdf >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_corre…> >>> - >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fingleton-to-cerf-20jun06-en.pdf >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >>> >>> ·Article 29 WP Opinion on the application of the data protection >>> principles to WHOIS directories >>> Article 29 WP 76 Opinion 2/2003 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_po…> >>> >>> >>> ·Additional Article 29 WP documents that may be of interest to >>> this PDP WG >>> >>> - Article 29 WP 5 Recommendation 2/97 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_da…> >>> >>> - Article 29 WP 33 Opinion 5/2000 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_da…> >>> >>> - Article 29 WP 41 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_da…>Opinion >>> 4/2001 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_da…> >>> >>> - Article 29 WP 56 Working Document 5/2002 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_da…> >>> >>> - Article 29 WP 217 Opinion 4/2014 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ec.europa.eu_justice_da…> >>> >>> ·Council of Europe Declaration >>> >>> -Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on ICANN, human >>> rights and the rule of law >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wcd.coe.int_ViewDoc.js…> >>> (3 June 2015) >>> >>> ·EDPS Correspondence regarding Registration Data >>> >>> -Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor: Europe's >>> role in shaping the future of Internet Governance >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure.edps.europa.eu_…>(23 >>> June 2014) >>> >>> -ICANN's public consultation on 2013 RAA Data Retention >>> Specification Data Elements and - Legitimate Purposes for >>> Collection and Retention >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure.edps.europa.eu_…>(17 >>> April 2014) >>> >>> ·International Working Group on Data Protection in >>> Telecommunications and Media Documents >>> >>> -Common Position relating to Reverse Directories >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datenschutz-2Dberlin.d…> >>> (Hong Kong, 15.04.1998) >>> >>> -Common Position on Privacy and Data Protection aspects of the >>> Registration of Domain Names on the Internet >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datenschutz-2Dberlin.d…> >>> (Crete, 4./5.05.2000) >>> >>> -Common Position on Privacy and Data Protection aspects of the >>> Publication of Personal Data contained in publicly available >>> documents on the Internet >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datenschutz-2Dberlin.d…> >>> (Crete, 4./5.05.2000) >>> >>> -Common Position on Incorporation of telecommunications-specific >>> principles in multilateral privacy agreements: Ten Commandments >>> to protect Privacy in the Internet World >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datenschutz-2Dberlin.d…> >>> (Berlin, 13/14.09.2000) >>> >>> -Common Position on data protection aspects in the Draft >>> Convention on cyber-crime of the Council of Europe >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datenschutz-2Dberlin.d…> >>> (Berlin, 13/14.09.2000) >>> >>> ·EWG Recommendations for a Next-Generation RDS >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>, >>> especially >>> >>> -Section 3, Users and Purposes >>> >>> -Annex C, Example Use Cases >>> >>> -Annex A, Board Questions >>> >>> ·EWG Tutorial >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__london50.icann.org_en_s…>Pages >>> 17-20, 37-41and EWG FAQs >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> >>> 9-12, 67 >>> >>> *·*Video FAQ “Is my purpose supported by the RDS? >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzPkxNNfDY4&list=UUl7rV9qJaQEx3GKhtSLx4QA>*”*** >>> >>> ·Statements/Blogs by Perrin >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> >>> andSamuels >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_…> >>> >>> ·Process Framework >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> >>> for a PDP on Next-Generation RDS, especially Page 9, Row 1 >>> >>> >>> Please let me know which documents you each of you have chosen >>> to review. >>> >>> Thank you all for volunteering. >>> Susan Kawaguchi >>> Domain Name Manager >>> Facebook Legal Dept. >>> >>> >>> From: <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of >>> Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-purpose >>> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> >>> Reply-To: Kiran Malancharuvil >>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com >>> <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> >>> Date: Monday, March 28, 2016 at 11:57 AM >>> To: "gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>" >>> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Purpose sub team >>> >>> If we are going to table a recent ICANN expert group report on >>> Registration Directory Services, why don’t we start with the >>> Expert Working Group on Registration Directory Services rather >>> than SSAC? It’s much more recent and was subjected to several >>> public comment periods. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Kiran >>> >>> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org> >>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of >>> *Greg Shatan via gnso-rds-pdp-purpose >>> *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 11:53 AM >>> *To:* Ayden Fabien Férdeline >>> *Cc:* Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> >>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Purpose sub team >>> >>> Edited below. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline >>> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> >>> Thank you to Susan for setting out the approach we will take in >>> our sub-team. I will begin this exercise by tabling “WHOIS: >>> Blind Men and an Elephant >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__links5.mixmaxuserconte…>”, >>> a report from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee >>> (SSAC) in September 2012. >>> >>> >>> The gist of their report is that there are four current uses of >>> the WHOIS service, two of which the SSAC says are legitimate >>> (law enforcement access to data; security practitioner access to >>> data), and two where it is silent on the question of legitimacy >>> (public access to data; intellectual property owner access to >>> data). I have bullet pointed below the main arguments they raise >>> in relation to the purpose of collecting and maintaining this data: >>> >>> * *_Terminology:_* >>> * SSAC disagrees with the term “WHOIS” - prefers three >>> specific terms be used: domain name “registration data,” >>> “access protocol,” and “directory services”. >>> * *_Data Elements:_* >>> * The appearance of email addresses guarantees that spam will >>> be delivered to those email addresses. >>> * *_Purpose:_* >>> * WHOIS was created to provide a means to make contact >>> information available for what was then a very small (and >>> essentially homogeneous in terms of user community) Internet >>> compared to what exists today. >>> * Today there are four main uses of WHOIS: >>> o Public access to details about a domain name registration. >>> + SSAC >>> >>> notes that "It is a widely held belief that the public Internet >>> should have access to domain name registration data." >>> >>> >>> o Law enforcement access to details about a domain name >>> registration. >>> + SSAC says this is a legitimate use case. >>> o Intellectual property owner access to details about a >>> domain name registration. >>> + SSAC >>> >>> notes that "It is a widely held belief that intellectual >>> property owners should have access to domain name registration >>> data." >>> >>> >>> . >>> >>> o Security practitioner access to details about a domain >>> name registration. >>> + SSAC says this is a legitimate use case. >>> * SSAC would like to see research into why users purchase >>> privacy-proxy services. It has heard that some people do so >>> to hide from law enforcement, but would like to see more >>> research/evidence to validate this point. Privacy-proxy >>> services should not hinder the ability to trace the identity >>> of a domain name registrant. >>> * *_Access Levels:_* >>> * SSAC says we need to distinguish between what information is >>> collected and what information is published in an open >>> database. Does not comment any further. >>> * *_Universality:_* >>> * Whatever policy is adopted it should be applied universally >>> across all gTLDs. >>> * *_Accuracy:_* >>> * Whatever data is collected must be accurate and there must >>> be enforcement and compliance mechanisms in place to support >>> this. >>> >>> I hope this summary is useful. Please let me know if you would >>> prefer that I summarise reports in a different way as we move >>> forward with the review of past literature. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Susan Kawaguchi via >>> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> Thank you for volunteering for the Purpose sub team. >>> >>> This is a list of all that have volunteered - Carlton Samuels, >>> Fabricio Vayra, Susan Prosser, Beth Allegretti, Jim Galvin, >>> Kiran Malancharuvil, Lori Schulman, Vlad Dinculescu, Richard >>> Leaning, Amr Elsadr, Donna Austin, Stephanie Perrin, Tjabbe Bos, >>> Sana Ali, Ayden Ferdeline, Greg Aaron, Jody Kolker, Adrian >>> Cheek, Kathy Kleiman, Chuck Gomes, Maryan Rizinski, Nathalie >>> Coupet, Roger Carney >>> >>> I look forward to working with you all over the next couple of >>> weeks to collect, consolidate, concisely summarize, and then >>> present inputs and information about the purpose of registration >>> data. >>> >>> This is a link to the RDS PDP WG document that describes the >>> approach the WG agreed upon >>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730879/RDS-PDP-Proposed-… >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> >>> >>> >>> Would any one like to volunteer to start collecting information >>> on purpose of registration data? I am sure that the RDS PDP WG >>> wiki has resources to start this collection and then we should >>> think of what else should be included. Once we have started >>> collecting the information I think a sub team conference call to >>> discuss what we are collecting would be helpful. >>> >>> Any other ideas on how to approach our work? >>> >>> Looking forward to the discussion. >>> >>> Susan Kawaguchi >>> >>> Domain Name Manager >>> >>> Facebook Legal Dept. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list >>> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> +44.77.8018.7421 <tel:%2B44.77.8018.7421> >>> >>> Image removed by sender. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list >>> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list >>> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list > gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list > gnso-rds-pdp-purpose(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose

1 0

Privacy sub-group
by David Cake March 30, 2016

March 30, 2016

Welcome all of you to the Privacy sub-team. Thanks to all of you for volunteering. Our task is first to collect information on privacy issues relevant to registration data. Then we will go on to decide how best to present that information for use of the working group - we may consolidate, summarise, prioritise etc in order to make the important information easily available. Hopefully the privacy experts on this group will help us locate the most important material, and make it easily digestible to the broader working group. This is a link to the RDS PDP WG document that describes the approach the WG agreed upon https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730879/RDS-PDP-Proposed-… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> At this early stage, we are in collection mode - please send documents that you think will be valuable to the group. If you add a bit more information for context as to why you think it would be useful, that will probably be very helpful for later work. Looking forward to working with you all. David

11 23

UN Special Rapporteur report on the right to privacy
by Ayden Fabien Férdeline March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

Hi, all- As we collect inputs over the next week(s), I thought I'd begin by sharing a recent report by the UN Special Rapporteur, Joseph Cannataci, on the right to privacy. You can download it here: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Privacy/A-HRC-31-64.doc There are a few things in the report that I'd like to draw your attention to as we move forward with shaping our work plan. On page 4, paragraph 8 Cannataci identifies a need to understand that privacy norms differ across cultures. ICANN may be based in the U.S., but the rest of the world is not beholden to the first, fourth, or fourteenth amendments. My view is that we should be developing policy that is universally applicable and which incorporates a dimension of cultural sensitivity. Paragraph 9 of the report reminds us that the commodification of personal data is not always conscious nor consenting by individuals. Across cultures the notions and expectations of privacy may vary but the idea of informed concept before the disclosure of personally identifiable information is a pretty common one. There's not a whole lot of substance to the report, but there are some interesting questions being asked that I think should inform our work as we consider the repercussions of collecting and retaining data. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline

1 0