Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models

[Mueller, Milton L]

I do not think we want to maximize the ability of registrars to conform to national law. ICANN was created specifically to be a global governance agency so that DNS would be globally compatible and the market for DNS services would be globally open and competitive. Encouraging variations in practices across jurisdictions moves us away from that goal.

The simple solution to this dilemma is for Whois to conform narrowly to ICANN’s legitimate purpose in collecting the data and thus _minimize_ the data that it collects and makes publicly available. Thus, while I agree ICANN not should press for higher national privacy standards, I do agree with Ayden that if it minimizes what it collects and makes available it flies above the problem of jurisdictional variation. If specific jurisdictions want to regulate local registrars to force them to collect and/or disseminate more, that is (unfortunately) something they will have to deal with, but ICANN should make its global whois requirements well above the threshold that would violate the privacy laws of any country.

In this respect ICANN is not the standard setter for all worldwide privacy, but it is, and is supposed to be, the global standard setter for DNS policy.

Dr. Milton Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology

[IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>



From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 9:35 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models

I tend to agree with Sam on this … the GDPR is a good standard, but it is not a universal standard.  And just as we don’t want ICANN to be in the business of content regulation we don’t want it to be the standard setter for world wide privacy.  Our goal should be to identify the minimum contractually necessary and then allow divergence across the globe.  The more difficult question is what, precisely, that minimum is …

P

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:59 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models


Colleagues,

I may have an overly simplistic view of the issue here, but I would like to put it on the table. ICANN has a narrow remit within the growing area of global, regional (e.g. EU), and national Internet governance. It exercises that remit through a serious of contracts with entities (registrars and registries) that operate under diverse national Internet governance jurisdictions.

With differing specific data protection language in diverse contexts, it is highly unlikely that ICANN can draft “higher standard” contract language that will satisfy the data privacy regulations of all, most, or even many, national data privacy regimes. So, what is the path forward here?

There seem to be two components of a path forward. First, ICANN must figure out how it exercises ICANN agency as a stakeholder in the various legislative policy venues in which data privacy and other Internet governance policy is debated and where regulations are formed. Some ICANN stakeholders already “have skin in those games” and are already present in those policy debates. ICANN writes contract language and needs to be engaged as a stakeholder.

Second, in contrast to seeking “higher standard” contract language, ICANN may need to look for “minimum conditions” contract language that offers contracted parties maximum freedom to negotiate with and meet the conditions of national Internet governance policies. At the same time ICANN can use its agency as a stakeholder to press for “higher standard” national policies that harmonize regulations, and facilitate the work and interests of various stakeholders in the Internet ecosystem.

In short, the path forward may be (a) more ICANN agency as a stakeholder, and (b) minimal contract language to maximize the ability of contracted parties to deal with national policies and regulations.

Sam L.

On 1/14/2018 10:02 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Hi Caleb,

While I appreciate that not all countries have data protection laws, privacy remains a fundamental human right. My suggestion is thus that we should adopt the highest level of protection for all domain name registrants. And I suspect it is a lot easier to implement one model, rather than fragmented models for different jurisdictions.

Please also remember that ICANN sets policy by contract; i.e. registries, registrars, and registrants agree by contract to follow the rules and policies created by ICANN, and these policies can be revised and deleted. So while ICANN must of course comply with the law, it can adopt and impose a higher standard on the contracted parties.

Many thanks,

Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
Local Time: 14 January 2018 3:56 PM
UTC Time: 14 January 2018 14:56
From: muyiwacaleb at GMAIL.COM<mailto:muyiwacaleb at GMAIL.COM>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>

Hello Badii and Ayden,

For me, i think the Model 2A serves the purposes. Don't forget that not all countries have data protection laws or policy in place.
Hence, based on jurisdiction, they cannot be governed by laws that is peculiar to a certain continent or sovereign state.

Caleb Ogundele

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
I could live with the second model.

The key differentiation between Model 2A and 2B is its applicability: 2A applies only "where the registrant, registry, registrar or a processor are located in the European Economic Area"; 2B "applies to all registrations on a global basis without regard to location of registry, registrar registrant, and processing activities"

On this basis I think Model 2B is the best path forward. To have fragmented approaches for different regions would be a mistake, in my opinion.

Given the short turnaround time here (we need to agree on a position and submit a comment by 29 January) and other obstacles between now and then (Intersessional, GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session), may I suggest that we schedule a call next week to discuss our response?

Best wishes, Ayden


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
Local Time: 13 January 2018 7:40 PM
UTC Time: 13 January 2018 18:40
From: farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM<mailto:farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>

Please see the CEO blog on Data protection and privacy:

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models

We should understand these models, discuss them and provide feedback.

Best
Farzaneh




--
Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb
muyiwacaleb at gmail.com<mailto:muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>
234 - 8077377378
234 - 07030777969



--

------------------------------------------------

"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured

in an unjust state" -Confucius

 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也

------------------------------------------------

Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)

Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3

email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran at Yorku.ca>   Skype: slanfranco

blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com

Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180115/97878599/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3029 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180115/97878599/attachment.jpg>