Some update on EPDP work /Privacy in WHOIS

[farzaneh badii]

I had suggested that we ask the law firm whether purpose two is crafted
rightly and is actually legal. Dont know if we asked that. Bird and Bird
rep was present during re crafting this purpose at Toronto meeting. Her
suggestions I think were mostly discarded. One was to add the term “where
necessary”.

Also note that the CEO once during the LA meeting told the CPs we are
trying to diminish your liability. Is that a bad thing? While this might
not be legally viable if ICANN take on a lot of risk to disclose personal
info then this purpose is unfortunately a terrible purpose. But
interestingly while ICANN wants to diminish cps liability, seems like ICANN
org doesnt want to be the joint controller, but perhaps wants to be
independent controller. It is very ambiguous.

But we had to compromise. I find the addition of footnote to this purpose
extremely risky and will note my objection( though seems like NCSG as a
whole does not want to object , i dont know) . I find the mention of SSR
dangerous. But I couldnt get anywhere with my objections.

 I had to attend F2F remotely because I didnt get my Canadian visa on time
since the chair of epdp decided that he should favor one person over 4
others and hold the meeting outside of the US (wonder why that never
happens to me). So I invite others who were present to correct the record
if I am wrong somewhere.

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 11:17 AM James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> Interesting, as (I assume) one of the few people on this list who is
> registered as a DPO I think its very interesting to see the group come to
> those conclusions, its certainly not a risk I would accept in the firm that
> I am DPO for, will be interesting to see how ICANN navigates that with the
> various DPAs who are surely going to test that interpretation of legitimate
> interest.
>
>
> On 3 Feb 2019, at 17:13, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> The EPDP team does have external counsel (Bird & Bird), who have issued
> advice on some topics, including interpretation of 6(1)(b) (contractual
> necessity) and other pieces of the GDPR where our Legal Committee has
> thought it necessary to seek clarification from counsel. However in this
> particular instance, from what I recall, the EPDP team felt comfortable
> making the analysis ourselves. I am personally comfortable with the
> language. Note that there is a balancing test; the disclosure of
> registration data to a third party is not automatic, and only occurs if the
> contracted party assesses the harm to the registrant is outweighed by the
> legitimate interests of the third party. I happen to think this is a high
> bar, and that most contracted parties will be risk-adverse, so registration
> data is unlikely to be disclosed too freely. I don't think you can rely on
> consent here, because the circumstances in which I think data should be
> disclosed (i.e. *legitimate* investigations of abuse, fraud) are unlikely
> to result in bad actors consenting to the disclosure of their registration
> data.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Sunday, February 3, 2019 10:58 AM, James Gannon <
> james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>
> I think ICANN will struggle to find a DPO who will work under the
> assertion that the disclosure of registration data is an activity covered
> under legitimate interest.
> Has the EPDP received external legal advise on any of these?
>
>
> On 3 Feb 2019, at 16:56, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> For purpose 2, the EPDP team has completed four lawfulness of processing
> tests, one for each of the following activities:
>
>    - collection of registration data
>    - transfer of registration data from registrar to registry
>    - disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties
>    - retention of registration data by registrar
>
> In the case of the disclosure of registration data to third parties, we
> are not relying on consent, therefore Article 7 does not apply. We have
> assessed this as being a 6(1)(f) (legitimate interest) processing activity.
> However, in recognition of the fact that such a disclosure is not
> technically necessary to perform the registration contract between the
> registrant and registrar, the contracted party would still need to perform
> the requisite balancing test to ensure the third party's legitimate
> interests override the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject,
> before registration data is disclosed.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Sunday, February 3, 2019 4:08 AM, James Gannon <james at CYBERINVASION.NET>
> wrote:
>
> Would love to know how purpose 2 is defined on a legal basis and also how
> it complies with Art 7 section 4.
>
>
> On 3 Feb 2019, at 09:45, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our update on EPDP work is overdue, so I thought I write my thoughts and
> report a bit on the developments, and others from EPDP team can chime in if
> they think I got something wrong.
>
> *where we are at:*
> we are now finalizing the preliminary report and need to come to a
> consensus quickly and send the report off to the council for approval. So
> pressure is high. We have to come up with an interim policy plan  to cover
> the gap between implementation and approval of the recs.
>
> *Our principles: *
> - Maximum data protection for domain name registrants globally
> - Accountable disclosure and accountable receipt  of domain name
> registrants personal info
> - Side with providing data protection when in doubt whether GDPR applies
> - Keep ICANN's mission limited
>
> I have attached a PDF with markation of what we have problems with or
> doubts for the moment. I am still working on it but it's attached.
>
>  *Purposes for domain name registrants data processing -*
>
>
>
>    1. Purpose 1. To establish registrants rights (generally is a good
>    purpose, in favor of registrants). Note that some would like to add the
>    word obligation of domain name registrants to this purpose which we have
>    resisted and argued that if they want to do that they need a
>    standalone purpose.
>    2. Contributing to the maintenance of SSR through disclosure to lawful
>    requests: we initially opposed this purpose because it's not a purpose for
>    data processing. you don't collect data to disclose it later to third
>    parties. Now the purpose has canged to: "Contributing to the maintenance of
>    the security, stability, and resiliency of theDomain Name System in
>    accordance with ICANN’s mission through enabling responses to lawful data
>    disclosure requests." This is not a bad compromise. But the footnotes are
>    not very helpful. The first footnote says that this purpose does not
>    preclude IP based requests. Though this was a compromise makes me very
>    worried. We have always said that SSR does not include IP issues and this
>    footnote can make it easier to include IP in SSR in the future. My solution
>    would be to re-word this and say: This purpose does not preclude
>    lawful disclosure for non-SSR issues i.e. trademark infringement (in
>    accordance with ICANN bylaws). The details of the disclosure will be
>    discussed in phase two.
>
> What we have achieved so far (relatively):
> 1. there might be no differentiation between legal and natural persons
> 2.Tech admin contact might become optional
> 3. There might be no differentiation in treating domain name registrants
> based on their geographical location
> 4. Thin registries might not have to implement thick registries policy
> (unsure about that, please correct me if I am wrong)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
> <EPDP Team Draft Final Report - Annotated.pdf>
>
>
>
>
> --
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190203/2696c5cf/attachment.htm>