[NCSG-PC] Sensitive data - GDPR Article 9
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Jul 10 19:13:40 EEST 2018
Agreed, Farzi, that in calling everything "nonpublic WHOIS data," they
are simplifying a complicated subject. I was glad that the Board, in the
Temp Spec, chose not to differentiate between "legal persons" and
"individuals" for exactly this reason -- as many organizations are legal
persons and highly protected for the sensitive political, religious,
sexual, work that they do!
If we don't assess these protections now... in access evaluation... how
do we properly and legally balance rights?
Tx for your work!!
Best, K
On 7/10/2018 11:53 AM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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//
>
> 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
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
>> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>, Susan Kawaguchi
>> <susankpolicy at gmail.com> <mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>,
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Donna Austin
>> <donna.austin at team.neustar>
>> <mailto:donna.austin at team.neustar>, rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Heather Forrest
>> <haforrestesq at gmail.com> <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>,
>> gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
>> <gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>, Paul
>> McGrady (Google Docs)
>> <d+MTE3MzIyNzA1MjYyOTU3ODM2OTY2-MTE1MTM1NDA5ODg5NTEyMTUyMzA5 at docs.google.com>
>> <mailto:d+MTE3MzIyNzA1MjYyOTU3ODM2OTY2-MTE1MTM1NDA5ODg5NTEyMTUyMzA5 at docs.google.com>,
>> Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> --
> Farzaneh
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180710/88bfccd4/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list