[NCSG-PC] Dissent on the EPDP final report

[Stephanie E Perrin]

On 2021-09-10 12:59 p.m., Stephanie E Perrin wrote:
>
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210910/318e5915/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/20210910/318e5915/attachment.docx>