<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">So I think we have exchanged views and have a pretty good idea of where people stand and what the issues are.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The next step is to define a position in the EPDP that all of our members can adhere to.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let me emphasize that defining a viable position is strategic and not simply a matter of standing up for some abstract principle.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will try to identify the set of real options below <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Option 1<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Under the phase 1 agreement there is no requirement to differentiate between legal and natural persons, but Contracted Parties (CPs) can do so if they want to. We are working on possible “guidance” for CPs who do try to differentiate.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One possibility is to leave things as they are. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No guidance. No requirement to differentiate. Let the status quo stand. CPs can do whatever they want.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Benefits: most data will probably remain redacted<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Risks/problems: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> - we are already working on guidance, this may no longer be an option<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- some registrars could impose differentiation on their customers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- GAC, including European Commission, IPC, BC, ALAC, SSAC will be unhappy and apparent lack of consensus could lead to board or legislative override<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Option 2:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(Stephanie’s approach)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Develop Guidance, but make it non-binding<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No legal or natural differentiation, focus on presence or absence of personal data<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Registrant must make attestations re personal data; more difficult and costly process<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CP involvement in and liability for decisions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Option 3:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-----------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(Milton’s approach)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Develop Guidance, but make it non-binding<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ask for self-designation as legal at point of registration; registrant is informed of consequences<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CP can alter record only at request of Registrant<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CP liability and responsibility for contents of reg records is minimized<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Option 4:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Develop guidance for differentiation and make it a requirement<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Many different options under here. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is not an exhaustive list, but it will get us started. <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We need to move beyond posturing and offer specific proposals that can gain traction in the actual EPDP group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. Milton L Mueller<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img width="205" height="82" style="width:2.1319in;height:.8541in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D73B81.BB1BCBE0" alt="IGP_logo_gold block"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>