FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
The ALAC welcomes the report of the registration directory service (RDS) second review team and takes this opportunity to provide its comments on the report herein. The ALAC fully supports the recommendations in relation to objective one with regard to the recommendations of the first RDS review team and we particularly note the importance of recommendation R5.1 addressing the data accuracy. Principle 5(1)d of the GDPR particularly requires that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure the personal data is not incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact. Depending on the purpose of use of the data, it should be kept updated. In addition, all challenges to the accuracy of the data should be taken into consideration. To comply with GDPR, serve the purpose of collection and give the data subjects their rights; implementation of this high priority recommendation is required. We also note the importance of this recommendation in supporting the entities that work to protect the Internet end users. With regard to recommendation R12.1 we would like to highlight the importance of the translation of the registration data. However, we understand that reviewing the effectiveness of the recommendations of the first review team in this regard is currently not possible and that such an evaluation will only be possible after the adoption of the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). The ALAC regards some of the findings with regard to objective three in relation to the law enforcement needs as very important. Where 60% of the respondents to a survey to identify possible alternatives to the RDS lookups that would fulfill the same investigative need, indicated that they do not have any other tool in this regard. In addition, 89% of the respondents deemed RDS as very important. The ALAC welcomes the recommendation of the team and supports surveys and information gathering. In addition, we note to the importance of the surveys conducted by the WHOIS2 review team to the EPDP team working on gTLD registration data policy development. In addressing objective four, consumer trust the ALAC finds the definition of consumer trust in relation to the RDS provided by the WHOIS1 review final report which says “consumer trust can be narrowly construed to mean the level of trust users have in available WHOIS data; or more broadly as the level of trust consumers have in Internet information and transactions in general” as a very important guide when looking at the benefits of the RDS to users. The report mentions that although users do not directly use the system nevertheless the data stored does indirectly significantly impact users. The ALAC would like to emphasis on the findings of the review team and its importance to the Internet users.
Finally, in light of the Temp. Spec and the new RDS policy being developed to comply with the GDPR the ALAC acknowledges the challenges that might have faced the review team in the development of the report. Nevertheless, we find the report including very useful information that should be used to guide the development of relevant policies. The ALAC appreciates the team’s effort and supports the provided recommendations.
