[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Farzaneh,

my understanding for the comments till now on the scope is:


   - keep question c1: "Should registrars continue to transfer contact data
   for all contacts to (thick) registries?" also other original questions
   - add 2 new questions with regard to data transfer

c4) Is the transfer of personal data of domain name registrants from
registrars to registries legal and GDPR compliant.

c5) is the transfer of data (and having thick whois) in line with ICANN
mission. Does it fulfill a legitimate purpose in line with ICANN mission?


   - remove all the new part for phase 2 on access suggested by Keith

Best,

Rafik


Le jeu. 5 juil. 2018 à 13:04, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Rafik, all,
>
> I can see that Samantha has deleted this very important question from
> section C:
>
>
> c1) Should registrars continue to transfer contact data for all contacts
> to (thick) registries?
>
> We need to object and ask the question to remain. We need to know if such
> transfer is 1) necessary 2) GDPR compliant
>
> All the access questions should be objected to except what was originally
> there.
>
> No phase two in EPDP should be accepted.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:53 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Those changes on scope were proposed by keith, it is all about the access
>> and phasing. Please review carefully and discuss here.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>> Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 12:00 AM
>> Subject: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter
>> To: marika.konings at icann.org <marika.konings at icann.org>,
>> susankpolicy at gmail.com <susankpolicy at gmail.com>, Heather Forrest (
>> Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au) <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>,
>> Donna.Austin at team.neustar <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>,
>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached some suggested edits to the scope section of the
>> Charter, primarily intended to clarify the two-phase approach (Temp Spec
>> and then Access Model) and to help identify what issues from Phase 1 are
>> gating for Phase 2.
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan, I understand you and Samantha chatted about this in Panama, so we
>> wanted to follow up with proposed text.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me know if you have any questions, or if this should be added
>> directly to the Google doc. Note that the recommendations will impact the
>> timeline graphic as noted in the comment on Page 6.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180705/f5af6b6c/attachment.htm>