[NCSG-PC] Sensitive data - GDPR Article 9

Tue Jul 10 18:53:41 EEST 2018

Kathy

This is the fight we have started. I think they water down the problem by
calling it access to nonpublic whois data which if I am not wrong is simply
personal information of data subjects! I see Ayden has commented on the
document to that effect and I think we should add sensitive data too.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:46 AM Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
wrote:

> Hi Rafik, Stephanie, Ayden, Martin, Tatiana, Arsene and All,
> I'm worried about the absence in the EPDP draft of "sensitive data."
> Sensitive data is the part of the GDPR that protects data of those engaged
> in political, religious, racial, ethnic, LGBQT activities. It's a section
> of the GDPR designed created to protect people who express minority views
> -- the very type of organizations who are often members of NCSG.
>
> Because GDPR Article 9 protects "sensitive data," and organizations (which
> are often "legal entities"), it should be to be expressly called out in
> EDPD draft, e.g., as "personal *and sensitive *data." The protections
> GDPR Article 9 also fundamentally implicated in the calculus of disclosure,
> e.g., when “access to registration data based on legitimate interests" [is
> or is] "not outweighed by the fundamental rights of relevant data
> subjects." * https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/
> <https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/>*
>
> I've written a short memo (attached) for you on this topic - with guidance
> from Council of Europe's Data Protection Unit. Who else on Council should I
> circulate it to? Good luck with the negotiations!
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> On 7/10/2018 1:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks, Stephanie for sharing this draft.
> indeed all those gating questions are of concerns and will impact the EPDP
> progress. Adding the accredited access model to the EPDP defacto make it
> longer than planned even if the team delivers the first final report for
> the temporary spec part. That goes beyond the planned 6 months and I don't
> think it is doable or can be acceptable to have an intense team like the
> envisioned EPDP to be asked to figure out the access model too. I don't
> know if the same volunteers or participants have the same background and
> knowledge on the 2 different issues.
> that should be treated by a separate team while we can argue about the
> gating questions and which can be treated by the EPDP team. We can suggest
> that the staggered phase can be started with some conditions TBD and not
> automatically. those questions and responses can be approved separately
> from the rest of other recommendations in the 1st final report.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le mar. 10 juil. 2018 à 05:38, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a écrit :
>
>> I am not very happy with the "small team" efforts.  My comments are being
>> ignored (surprise surprise) and the BC/IPC is being permitted to do back
>> room drafting with staff, after coming in at the last minute (7 minutes to
>> our meeting time) with new language.  I wanted that paragraph thrown out
>> wholesale....
>>
>> And the questions are not all legit, and if the answers to the gating
>> questions are not approved by the community, no matter, we go on regardless.
>>
>> please take a minute to think about this mess, we are being driven by
>> artificial deadlines to finish and agree.
>>
>> steph
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope
>> call
>> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:08:28 +0000
>> From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
>> <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
>> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com>, Susan
>> Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com> <susankpolicy at gmail.com>,
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Donna Austin
>> <donna.austin at team.neustar> <donna.austin at team.neustar>,
>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>,
>> Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com> <haforrestesq at gmail.com>,
>> gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Paul
>> McGrady (Google Docs)
>> <d+MTE3MzIyNzA1MjYyOTU3ODM2OTY2-MTE1MTM1NDA5ODg5NTEyMTUyMzA5 at docs.google.com>
>> <d+MTE3MzIyNzA1MjYyOTU3ODM2OTY2-MTE1MTM1NDA5ODg5NTEyMTUyMzA5 at docs.google.com>,
>> Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>
>> Hi Team,
>>
>>
>>
>> Following our call today, Donna and I have been working on the Google Doc
>> from this morning’s EPDP Scope call.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are the changes we made:
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. Based on the comments from Paul and others regarding the
>>    difficulty of tracking comments in Google docs to the text, I inserted
>>    proposed text into the body of the document where the commenter is
>>    proposing it should go.  All proposed text is denoted by *italics and
>>    highlighted in yellow* for ease of reference.  I’m hoping that will
>>    make it easier to discuss on the call by zeroing in on highlighted text.
>>    2. I have removed references to phases and inserted references to
>>    gating questions. This text has been highlighted in yellow to note
>>    that it has been changed.
>>    3. Proposed gating questions have their numbering highlighted in green.
>>    There may be other gating questions, but I highlighted the
>>    originally-proposed gating questions as a starting point.
>>    4. Donna and I added some comments on what the group appeared to
>>    converge on during today’s call.
>>    5. Lastly, I attached the notes from today’s call in case you find
>>    these helpful as you’re going through the document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the link to the Google Doc:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TlcnfYuRhrCKVB28Rvb_ra6mCIWvjUDnJyJhSjbG5_Q/edit
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you, and please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist
>> in your review of the document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>> Caitlin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180710/96623c93/attachment.htm>