[Info] GDPR/Whois update

[Stephanie Perrin]

1. Yes we knew it would happen.

2.  They have been working on it since last summer, and have been 
popping out new models.  I ti s hard to keep up, frankly.

3.  To be fair to all parties, the part of the interim spec which says 
that contracted parties must provide reasonable access can hardly be 
avoided under the law.  The point where we diverge is where that 
reasonable access becomes a public disclosure instrument that is 
"unified" (the term they really want is "uniform", as I pointed out in 
Panama on the panel on this subject, but the data protection laws do not 
provide for that.

4.  I think we need to do a brief comment on access issues, raising all 
the pertinent issues.  I am working on the annotated version of the 63 
page document, but have been tied up in the WHOIS review team meeting, 
back at it again.

5.  We need to propose an alternate model.  This is not a community 
process.  I think the GNSO should discuss this at the next meeting.  
They have lost control of this process.

Stephanie


On 2018-07-28 11:12, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> This shines a spotlight on a real flaw in the EPDP’s Charter (being 
> the inclusion of ‘access').
>
> ICANN org is clearly engaged in a parallel process seeking “clarity” 
> from the various Data Protection Authorities on how to proceed here. 
> And I think it’s plausible that the ICANN Board will issue a second 
> Temporary Specification once they have enough “clarity” from the Data 
> Protection Authorities, because why wouldn’t they?
>
> Is ICANN org really shopping this unified access model around, and 
> then going to allow the community to develop something radically 
> different as a part of the EPDP? It makes sense to go with the model 
> that the GDPR’s enforcement bodies - the DPAs - are comfortable with.
>
> But we knew this would happen. This was why the NCSG was opposed to 
> the development of an access model being included in the EPDP’s scope. 
> We thought it would be a more effective use of the EPDP team’s time 
> and resources to not address this question until such time as ICANN 
> org had received and shared with the community the advice it has 
> received from the Data Protection Authorities, as their 
> recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will almost 
> certainly be followed by ICANN anyway.
>
> Given this, it’s time we engage with the unified access model. There 
> were good reasons not to in the past, but it isn’t going away.
>
> Ayden
>
>> On 28 Jul 2018, at 01:04, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> You can find here another blog post from ICANN CEO on activities 
>> around GDPR and Whois in ICANN 
>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps. 
>>
>>
>> It is compiling previous updates but I am also wondering if there is 
>> anything said between lines like the Uniform Access Model as ICANN 
>> org seems to continue in that path even with the start of EPDP 
>> process or the current temporary specification will be just confirmed 
>> as is or amended.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180728/bee3f866/attachment.htm>