Page History
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: James Bladel (RrSG) Alternates: Owen Smigelski (RrSG) |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Thursday 11 March 2021 at 14.00 UTC
- Please note that ICANN Org’s responses are now posted on the wiki:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=159482147 - Action: EPDP Team members to identify additional questions to ICANN org (if any) by Wednesday, 17 March
- Becky: he Legal Committee has worked hard in the last few weeks and has almost finished work on all questions. - The feasibility questions have been pared down to a single three-part question that will employ the definitions the Legal Committee previously circulated to the plenary, i.e., “registration-based email contact” and “registrant-based email contact”). -This will be circulated to the plenary shortly and then to Bird & Bird. - NCSG: Question – is the legal committee concerned with the feasibility or legality of anonymized contacts? - Becky: The Legal Committee is asking B&B to compare the level of risk and type of risk for automated disclosure of registrant-based email contact (which is an email contact that is consistent across the registrations of a single registrant) and, on the other hand, of a registration-based email contact, which would be unique to a particular registration. - The question that had been raised in one case (the Breyer case) – notwithstanding the definition of anonymity in GDPR - that would render the risk of reidentification by third parties insignificant. The Legal Committee is looking for a comparison with the legal risks associated with those choices. - SSAC: The business of trying to set up anonymous and pseudonymous is often the wrong direction. If you’d like to contact the registrant without revealing the contact information, could there be an easily computable email address that is forwarded to the registrant. There is no guarantee of a reply – it doesn’t have to be heavyweight. However, this is straightforward and trivial to implement system. - Becky: That would be work that would not be within the legal committee’s gambit; that is a policy question.
|