[NCSG-PC] Dissent on the EPDP final report

[Stephanie E Perrin]

So I have added the following statement to the document:


"

We note that those parties who pushed the hardest for making this 
distinction between legal and natural persons also pushed hard for a 
field or fields to input the data.Given that the recommendation will 
remain that it is a voluntary field, and it is up to the contracted 
parties, whose business models vary enormously, how they use the 
field(s), we do not believe that recommendations concerning the 
precision of the field are useful.If ICANN undertakes to instruct the 
IETF, for instance, how to standardize the field, how is the distinction 
and the collection and disclosure of the relevant data necessary to make 
that distinction still voluntary?This is a matter to be left to private 
sector best practice.


It appears immediately before the last paragraph.
Manju and I remain convinced that we need to make this statement. She is 
hopefully asleep at this moment, being 12 hours out of sync with EST.  
It reflects the arguments we have been pursuing for the last number of 
months, nothing new here....but it will be forgotten if we don't restate 
it, and we all know that comments on the final report are not going to 
be read as much as these minority statements.
I am including Kathy and Bruna on this thread as I know Kathy has been 
following the arguments recently rather closely.

cheers Steph


On 2021-09-10 12:02 p.m., Stephanie E Perrin wrote:
>
> Actually, the GAC minority statement makes my point rather 
> eloquently.  We did not include a comment on the stupidity of 
> providing precision about the data elements of a field that is not 
> mandatory.....see the following
>
> Recommendation #1 Fields to Facilitate Differentiation between Legal 
> and Natural Person Registration Data
> The GAC urged for the creation and use of data fields to flag legal 
> registrants and the presence or absence of personal
> information in their data sets. Such flagging mechanisms would provide 
> a necessary first step for differentiation.
> Recommendation 1 includes several obligations with regard to the 
> creation of fields to facilitate differentiation
> between legal and natural person registration data and identify 
> whether that registration data contains personal or
> non-personal data. In addition to creating these fields, there are 
> further obligations:
> ●for ICANN to coordinate the technical community, for example the RDAP 
> WG, to develop any necessary
> standards associated with such field(s);
> ●for the SSAD, consistent with the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations, to 
> support the fields in order to facilitate
> integration between SSAD and the Contracted Parties’ systems; and
> ●for the fields to support specific values related to the status of 
> legal persons and the presence or absence of
> personal data.
> The GAC especially values the precision of this Recommendation in 
> specifying precisely what values should be
> included in these fields. The GAC though believes that Recommendation 
> 1 would be more effective in creating the
> necessary infrastructure for differentiation if it:
> *1.****required contracted parties to not just create but also 
> to****use****these fields;**
> **2.****provided specific timelines for making these fields operable; 
> and**
> **3.****ensured that the fields will operate within the current and 
> contemplated systems for data collection and**
> **disclosure.*
> For clarity, the GAC thinks that requiring contracted parties to 
> populate these fields for all future registrations,
> irrespective of whether the contracted parties elect to differentiate 
> in their treatment of data from natural versus
> legal entities, is efficient and in the public interest because it 
> would provide a basis to flag and identify data that may
> be the subject of future expedited SS
>
>
> Going to go back in and add a comment on this stupidity that flies in 
> the face of database construction logic
>
> cheers Steph
>
> On 2021-09-10 11:27 a.m., Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>> > Our arguments are not clearly presented in the final report.
>>
>> So? What matters in the final report is the policy conclusions, not 
>> the arguments of all sides.
>>
>> I invite you to write a guest blog for IGP covering the process, but 
>> that's public commentary, which should never be confused with an 
>> ICANN policy document. 🙂
>>
>> >jockeying tecently about what goes in the report and what has to be 
>> in minority statements has
>> > been intense and ludicrous.
>>
>> indeed.
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20210910/2a2070a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Minority Statement on the final reportv5.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24558 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20210910/2a2070a8/attachment.docx>