Logo

Marika Konings' Personal Meeting Room
Terri Agnew
05:10:48
We are back from lunch and started.
James Bladel (RrSG)
05:57:39
I like Volker’s answer. But I’m not clear why (or if) it is correct?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
05:58:38
It is
Chris Lewis-Evans(GAC)
06:04:43
not, clear either
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
06:09:47
It's clear: ICANN or Registrar is the choice
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
06:11:01
So Ashley opts for ICANN
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
06:11:12
Volker and MM opt for registrars
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
06:12:54
if icann takes the decision, icann must take the liability through full indemnification
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
06:13:06
As ICANN does not want to do this…
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
06:14:47
If ICANN instructs Registrars to release data in a way that is of questionable legality, it would not relieve them of liability
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
06:15:12
yes, but ICANN can indemnify
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
06:15:33
policies and contracts can impose standards and procedures on registrars that can make them more uniform
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
06:16:26
hard to imagine ICANN indemnifying Google
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
06:21:52
We can surely develop a policy assigning all liability to ICANN, require indemnification, etc, but ultimately that will be shot down by ICANN. And rightly so,
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
06:22:07
for the points Milton made.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
06:28:03
DPAs may still pick whom they will go after. And a CP based in Europe is easier to get at than a Californian non profit
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
06:43:14
Very good summary, Gina!
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
06:48:36
Insuring against liability of that size strikes me as very costly. This would drive up costs significantly, would it not?
Jennifer Gore (IPC)
06:53:25
SERIOUSLY???
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
06:56:47
ICANN makes more per registration than we do...
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
06:57:05
So they have a larger commercial interest in each registration
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
07:12:28
I think it would help if the new policies contained an obligation for the registrar to respond to any request for disclosure and provide a reason if the request is denied.
Terri Agnew
07:14:36
break time, back in 20 minutes
Terri Agnew
07:41:14
We are back from break
Brian King (IPC)
08:27:51
For anyone who's interested, MarkMonitor's internal process/policy is published here: https://www.markmonitor.com/legal/privacy-policy/whois-request
Farzaneh Badii
08:34:45
I actually agree with Alex. Reasons should be given why data was not given.
Ayden Férdeline (NCSG)
08:40:13
Yes, I agree that there should be greater transparency into why requests have been denied.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
08:58:19
If someone could provide information on that .it whois lookup Margie referenced, I’d be interested in seeing that…
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
09:02:09
isn’t it obvious why reverse look ups are not acceptable? Even if law and policy allows it, it can lead to profiling and doesn’t afford the registrant due process.
Ben Butler (SSAC)
09:02:12
Agree with Matt. Doing (at least a web-based) whois for .IT domains doesn't seem to offer a data field-based search. Perhaps .IT changed their mind or was challenged?
James Bladel (RrSG)
09:02:58
I’m concerned that something unrelated to trademark infringement (say, an LGBT or religious/ethnic minority) would/could be revealed.
James Bladel (RrSG)
09:03:35
Then the legitimacy of one query doesn’t hold water for the next, etc.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
09:03:36
NCSG has been against it exactly because of that reason James.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
09:04:46
If it’s a C&C problem it’s a very clear case. Trademark infringement is different.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
09:18:05
powerful technics resulted in innocent people violation of data protection. They shouldn’t now.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
09:19:37
good. Life is better after GDPR.
Rafik Dammak (GNSO Council Liaison)
09:24:47
Thanks all