Statement: EPDP recommendations/WHOIS privacy

[Remmy Nweke]

Thanks for the update Farzaneh,
The draft comment is a welcome development.
Regards
Remmy

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, 2:16 a.m. farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The Council is going to vote on the motion to approve the recommendations
> of EPDP tomorrow (Thursday). We are at the final stages of our
> deliberations at EPDP and it is almost done.
>
> The council has to vote on this report (attached) as a whole and cannot
> vote on recommendations separately. This makes our work a bit difficult
> because we do not agree with all the recommendations. One approach would be
> for NCSG councilors to approve the report but make a short statement for
> our own record.
>
> I have been discussing the concerns for a couple of weeks on this list so
> there is nothing new and I hope that we can direct our councilors tomorrow
> to make this statement if they can:
>
>
> NCSG statement/ For GNSO Council Meeting, 14 February
>
> Despite an unrealistic timeline, EPDP achieved its goal and delivered the
> final report. We are positive about the final report and our councilors
> have voted for its approval. But we are concerned with some aspects of the
> report and would like to record our concerns.
>
>
>    -
>
>    The report has included additional potentially  personal and sensitive
>    data elements that are “identified by Registry Operator in its registration
>    policy."  There was no justifiable reason to include these additional data
>    elements in the report, nor was it justifiable to formulate purposes that
>    could relate to processing these additional elements.  These additional
>    data elements were not included in Temp Spec either. We are concerned about
>    subjecting these additional data elements to this policy and warn the ICANN
>    community and domain name registrants that due to this addition even more
>    sensitive and personal data might be disclosed to third parties on a global
>    scale.
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants
>    globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain
>    name registrants and providing some with less data protection is not
>    justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name
>    registrants data to third parties "globally".
>    -
>
>    We believe "disclosure" of data to third parties is not an ICANN
>    purpose for processing the data.
>
>
> We thank the EPDP, its leadership and ICANN staff for achieving this
> milestone. We hope that with this policy by cultivating a
> privacy-respecting culture at ICANN, protecting the personal data of domain
> name registrants becomes a norm, and not remain an exception.
>
>
> Link to the statement:
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M8M0kaQSdQD3CC1HmpSTwMIKcufCT0ekVu7yHgx_f5w/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> Comments are welcome (I think we have some hours)  but since
> Councilors are going to read this statement out I give them the liberty of
> changing the tone or re-doing the statement.
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190214/7f83bcd9/attachment.htm>