<html>
<body>
GDPR does allow for this, but the data commissioners have said they do
not care. I believe we can make arguments that shift that balance and I
certainly feel we need to try.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 29/08/2018 09:35 AM, John Laprise wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">While ICANN's situation is
unusual, GDPR doesn't care. The greatest benefit as a nonprofit is that
ICANN can assert "legitimate interest" more readily than a for
profit. However, as I mentioned, legitimate interest rests on a balancing
test between the interests of a PII subject and the data controller.
There are many cases where where individual interests outweigh
ICANN's.<br><br>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 2:06 AM Seun Ojedeji
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Sent from my mobile<br>
<dd>Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br><br>
<dd>On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 03:35 Alan Greenberg,
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I'm not at all sure that our situation is comparable. It is certainly
far more atypical than a standard business or nonprofit.<br><br>
<dd>Most people who have more knowledge of GDPR that I do deem ICANN to
ba a controller, although perhaps a join controller. But an unusual one
in that unlike most controllers, we do not actually have custody of the
data. <br><br>
<dd>Regarding where we are going on this, I am not prepared to roll over
an just play dead. I think we need to put up a fight to get where we need
to be. For instance, there are those who are saying (and using the data
commissioners words to "prove" it, that we must not consider
any needs other than our own. I differ on this. ICANN is not just
responsible for making sure that the DNS records are orderly. We also
have a responsibility to ensure that the DNS is usable and trusted.
Although the ICANN mission does not use that word in this context, I
believe that an untrusted DNS may as well not be there and be replaced
with some other mechanism. GPDR DOES allow us to consider the needs of
others. Article 6.1(f) explicitly says so. It is not unlimited but it is
there and should allow us to make the case for ensuring that law
enforcement and cyber security workers can get access. That is part of
our job in this game. <br><br>
<dd>And like some of the SAC101 recommendations, we need to not only make
sure that the data is there, and accessible, but that it can in practice
be accessed (such as recommendations on RDAP and rate limiting).<br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>SO: Agree<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>The Temporary Spec is overreaching in that it says we are responsible
for the entire framework for such activities and that is
nonsense,<br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>SO: By "we" I believe that ICANN is referred here, my
question to you then is if ICANN is not who else should responsible for
that? (at least on high level basis)<br><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>but I believe that we do have a responsibility to ensure that we
support that framework and ensure that some types of data are
available.<br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>SO: While I agree with the principle of support from ICANN, may I
know who you believe should prepare the framework?<br><br>
<dd>Regards<br><br>
<dl><br>
<dd>If that is not why we are on the EPDP, then I hope someone will tell
me that so I can save myself an awful lot of work.<br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<br>
<dd>At 28/08/2018 08:44 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Thanks John<br><br>
<dd>It’s really helpful hearing from someone who has to implement GDPR
- and can bring those insights to the table. <br><br>
<dd>I think we all struggle to work through - first - whether ICANN is
the data processor or controller, and from there, what information is
actually required by whom, used by whom and accessed by whom.<br>
<br>
<dd>If there were an easy answer, I think we’d be there. But none
of this is easy, so this insight is really welcome.</b><br><br>
<dd>Thank you<br><br>
<dd>Holly<br>
<dd>On 29 Aug 2018, at 10:37 am, John Laprise
<<a href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com">jlaprise@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>So in my day job I was one of the GDPR implementation leads and
we’ve just wrapped up the initial work. We were assisted by an external
consultancy. That said, if anything SSAC did not go far enough.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>ICANN has a contractual basis for data collection related to the
contracts it signs. The claim of legitimate interest is stretched well
beyond it’s intent and in fact the EU has opined on the balancing test
required. My understanding of the balancing test would call into question
even legitimate law enforcement requests where the PII was of an
individual or organization known to be persecuted. In that case,
couldn’t exert legitimate interest if it fails the balance test.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I am sympathetic to the needs of security researchers and law
enforcement but ICANN data collection does not exist for them, though it
is used by them. The proper scope is identifying what data SSAC and RSAC
need and use to advance ICANN’s mission.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>While rationale for data collection is one pain point, another that
my org discover was in terms of data transfer/processing. Legitimate
interest is not recognized rationale there. Moreover as a US nonprofit
ICANN is ineligible for PrivacyShield which could give it some
cover.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Finally and perhaps to make matters worse, the technical spec
instruct registries on data collection. I confess that at this point
I’m not sure whether ICANN is acting as a data controller or a data
processor. In a sense, the registries are data controllers and ICANN is
the data processor, thrusting the onus of compliance upon
registries.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I’m at the limits of my GDPR for the day so additional thoughts
would be welcome.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Best,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>John<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b> ALAC
<<a href="mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>> On Behalf Of </b>Holly
Raiche<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:17 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Marita Moll
<<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>>; ALAC
<<a href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br>
<dd>Cc:</b> Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
><br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [ALAC] EPDP Early input<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Thanks Marita<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I like your wording. Ys it is a big document and I like your
wording as to wha it is in the report that we endorse. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Holly<br>
<dd>On 29 Aug 2018, at 1:18 am, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Marita, I am not sure that your synopsis is all that different from
endorsing the entire paper when you start examining the rationales, but I
would be happy to accept that if we can get closure on it quickly. Time
is our enemy in this overall EPDP process.
<dd>Alan<br>
<dd>At 28/08/2018 10:38 AM, Marita Moll wrote:<br>
<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Sorry to have missed the call -- still confusing midnight Monday with
midnight Tuesday -- I guess I will get used to the format.
<dd>I just read this really well done SSAC report which is clear and
thorough. But there is a lot in there. I wonder if we should do a blanket
endorsement of everything without careful analysis.
<dd>Could we not have a more nuanced position? For example, we could say
that, in line with our mandate to support end-users, we support SSAC's
position on ensuring that security professionals and law enforcement have
adequate access to WHOIS/RDS data.
<dd>If that is the point we want to make.
<dd>Marita
<dd>On 8/28/2018 2:23 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>As I mentioned on the ALAC call that has just completed, all EPDP
participant groups have been given the opportunity to provide "early
input" into the EPDP.
<dd>So far, the SSAC and the NCSG has done so. Their input can be found
at<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ">https</a>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ">
://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ</a>.
<dd>The SSAC's input consisted of their recent report SAC101. A copy is
attached for your convenience.
<dd>I would like to suggest that the ALAC submit a statement saying that
we support SAC101, as it is in line with our stated position of trying to
ensure that security professionals and law enforcement have adequate
access to WHOIS/RDS data.
<dd>I open the floor for discussion and will initiate a Consensus Call
later in the week.<br>
<dd>Alan <br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<dd><pre>_______________________________________________</pre><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<dd><pre>ALAC mailing list</pre><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<pre><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
<dd>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a></pre><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<pre>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a></pre><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<dd><pre>At-Large Online:</pre><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<pre>
<dd><a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a></pre><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<dd><pre>ALAC Working Wiki:</pre><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<pre>
<dd>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC</a>
)
</pre>
</dl>
</dl>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>ALAC mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC</a>
)<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>ALAC mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</dl>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br>
</dl>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>