Changes

Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (view source)

Revision as of 16:02, 26 January 2022

9 bytes added , 2 years ago

Line 546: Line 546:

====Addendum to Initial Report====

Following the publication of the Initial Report, the EPDP team released an Addendum to the Initial Report in March 2020.<ref name="2addendum">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/124847621/EPDP%20Phase%202%20-%20%20Initial%20Report%20Priority%202%20Addendum%20-%2026%20March%202020.pdf EPDP Temp Spec Workspace - Addendum to Phase 2 Initial Report], March 20, 2020</ref> The addendum reported the team's deliberation of the priority 2 issues delegated to Phase 2:

−

* Display of information of affiliated vs. accredited privacy / proxy providers

+

* Display of information of affiliated vs. accredited privacy/proxy providers

* Legal vs. natural persons

* City field redaction

Line 559: Line 559:

* Recommendation 22: Add "contribute to the maintenance of the security, stability, and resiliency of the Domain Name System in accordance with ICANN's mission" to the "ICANN Purposes for processing gTLD registration data" listed in Recommendation 1 of the Phase 1 Final Report.

* Legal vs. natural persons: "There is a persistent divergence of opinion on if/how to address this topic within the EPDP Team." The team suggested that they confer with the GSNO Council for next steps.

−

* City field redaction: No changes recommended to the Phase 1 recommendation that redaction must be applied to the city field.

+

* City field redaction: No changes are recommended to the Phase 1 recommendation that redaction must be applied to the city field.

* Office of Chief Technology Officer: No need to propose additional purpose(s) to facilitate ICANN's OCTO in carrying out its mission.

* Feasibility of unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address: EPDP team received legal guidance<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/EPDP+-P2+Legal+subteam?preview=/111388744/126424478/Memo%20-%20ICANN%20-%2004.02.2020.docx EPDP Workspace - Bird & Bird Memo re: "Batch 2" of questions regarding SSAD, proxies, pseudonymous emails], February 4, 2020</ref> that publication of uniform masked email addresses represents the publication of personal data under the GDPR. Therefore, this policy does not appear to be feasible.

−

* Accuracy of WHOIS data and WHOIS accuracy reporting system: Per instructions from GNSO Council, the EPDP team will not pursue ~~this~~ issues during Phase 2. Instead, the GNSO will form a scoping team to identify what next steps should be regarding these topics.<ref name="2addendum" />

+

* Accuracy of WHOIS data and WHOIS accuracy reporting system: Per instructions from GNSO Council, the EPDP team will not pursue these issues during Phase 2. Instead, the GNSO will form a scoping team to identify what the next steps should be regarding these topics.<ref name="2addendum" />

The Addendum was published for public comment in March 2020.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/addendum-to-the-initial-report-of-the-expedited-policy-development-process-epdp-on-the-temporary-specification-for-gtld-registration-data-team--phase-2-26-03-2020 Public Comment Proceeding: EPDP Temp Spec Phase 2 - Addendum to Initial Report], last updated May 19, 2020</ref> The EPDP team again prepared an intake form for responses. Many constituencies and advisory committees expressed dismay at the lack of progress on many serious issues, and in particular those issues for which "preliminary conclusions" were reported.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=126430750&preview=/126430750/134513571/gnso-EPDP-P2-pcrt-Initial-Report-Addendum-Recommendations_Addendum_Issues_20200506.docx EPDP Workspace - Collated General Comments], May 6, 2020 (.docx)</ref> The decision to pass over the issues of accuracy of WHOIS data and the accuracy reporting system was met with strong disagreement.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=126430750&preview=/126430750/134513537/gnso-EPDP-P2-pcrt-Initial-Report-Addendum-Recommendations_Accuracy_ARS_20200506.docx EPDP Workspace - Collated Comments to Accuracy & ARS Preliminary Conclusion], May 6, 2020 (.docx)</ref> There was also strong opposition to the failure to take up the issue of legal versus natural persons. After a thorough review of current practice, legal opinion, and other factors, the GAC's comment put the matter succinctly:

−

<blockquote>The clear implication of this legal advice as well as the EDPB guidance is that there is a variety of measures to ensure that registrants accurately designate themselves as legal entities. The fact that many ccTLDs (including those based in the EU) already make certain registrant data of legal entities publicly available demonstrates that such distinction is both legally permissible and feasible.<br />

+

<blockquote>The clear implication of this legal advice, as well as the EDPB guidance, is that there is a variety of measures to ensure that registrants accurately designate themselves as legal entities. The fact that many ccTLDs (including those based in the EU) already make certain registrant data of legal entities publicly available demonstrates that such distinction is both legally permissible and feasible.<br />

−

Consequently, the GAC suggests that the EPDP reconsider its position. Instead of deferring this issue, the EPDP team could focus upon the legal guidance provided to develop reasonable policies to permit the information of legal entities to remain public. The time is now to implement policy that deals with this issue in a manner that promotes public safety and provides useful information to internet users seeking to navigate the internet safely and securely.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=126430750&preview=/126430750/134513453/gnso-EPDP-P2-pcrt-Initial-Report-Addendum-Recommendations_Legal_v_Natural_20200506.docx EPDP Workspace - Collated Comments Regarding Legal v. Natural Persons], May 6, 2020 (.docx)</ref></blockquote>

+

Consequently, the GAC suggests that the EPDP reconsider its position. Instead of deferring this issue, the EPDP team could focus upon the legal guidance provided to develop reasonable policies to permit the information of legal entities to remain public. The time is now to implement a policy that deals with this issue in a manner that promotes public safety and provides useful information to internet users seeking to navigate the internet safely and securely.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=126430750&preview=/126430750/134513453/gnso-EPDP-P2-pcrt-Initial-Report-Addendum-Recommendations_Legal_v_Natural_20200506.docx EPDP Workspace - Collated Comments Regarding Legal v. Natural Persons], May 6, 2020 (.docx)</ref></blockquote>

−

>====Final Report====

+

====Final Report====

The EPDP team submitted the Phase 2 Final Report to the GNSO Council on July 31, 2020. As proposed in the initial report, the EPDP Team advised the GNSO council to treat the recommendations as one package and pass them on as such to the ICANN Board.<ref name="finalrep" />

Jessica

Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator

14,932

edits