The RDRS must not sideline the Global South. REMMY NWEKE in this edition of WeekendDigits@ITREALMS urges ICANN to define 'Legitimate Interest' for local enforcement, protect digital rights, and ensure operational equity for African registries.
Defining future Internet:
The global architecture of the internet is constantly being reformed, and seldom has that reform been more critical than in the ongoing debate at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) community over how to access nonpublic domain registration data.
The RDRS policy must therefore explicitly define "Legitimate Interest" to be inclusive of essential local regulatory, journalistic due diligence, and consumer protection needs. This ensures the service operates as a low-barrier mechanism for all legitimate actors, regardless of their geopolitical location or financial clout. Failing to do this means we are building a "predictable" system that only delivers predictable outcomes for those already well-equipped to navigate the global policy landscape.
Integrating privacy by design for digital trust:
The discussion over disclosure must never lose sight of the individual domain registrant: the consumer or small business owner.
The global architecture of the internet is constantly being reformed, and seldom has that reform been more critical than in the ongoing debate at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) community over how to access nonpublic domain registration data.
The proposed solution, the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS), is intended to create a predictable and scalable pathway for legitimate data access in a world dominated by privacy regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union (EU).
However, the RDRS policy alignment analysis is not merely a technical exercise; it is a pivotal moment in the geopolitics of data. If designed with only the interests and resource capacity of the Global North in mind, it risks becoming another policy that systematically overlooks the unique enforcement and digital rights challenges faced by Africa and other developing regions.
My recent public comment to the ICANN community on the RDRS Policy Alignment Analysis was a direct intervention to ensure the final policy is globally equitable and specifically addresses the realities on the ground in the Global South.
My recent public comment to the ICANN community on the RDRS Policy Alignment Analysis was a direct intervention to ensure the final policy is globally equitable and specifically addresses the realities on the ground in the Global South.
Current Gap:- Inconsistency, Cost, and Exclusion:
The era of easy, public WHOIS data ended abruptly with the rise of modern data protection laws. While this was necessary to protect individual privacy, it created a void: legitimate entities, including law enforcement, cybersecurity researchers, and consumer protection groups, were left with an ad hoc and inconsistent process for accessing data necessary to fight crime.
The era of easy, public WHOIS data ended abruptly with the rise of modern data protection laws. While this was necessary to protect individual privacy, it created a void: legitimate entities, including law enforcement, cybersecurity researchers, and consumer protection groups, were left with an ad hoc and inconsistent process for accessing data necessary to fight crime.
The RDRS is designed to fill this void. Nevertheless, the system's success must be measured by its utility to all stakeholders, not just the best-resourced. For law enforcement agencies and regulators in Nigeria, Kenya, or Brazil, the current system is often opaque and requires high-level legal resources; that are scarce and expensive. This procedural friction severely hampers the ability to combat local cyber threats, such as romance scams, localized phishing campaigns, and consumer fraud that rely on quickly registering and discarding fraudulent domains.
Call for policy equity:
The path to a globally successful RDRS requires a unified approach that balances enforcement access with fundamental human rights and operational feasibility in emerging economies. This necessitates a strong policy commitment to three core principles: predictability, digital rights, and operational equity.
Predictability for local fighter:
The core of my submission is a plea for predictability for the common good. The proposed RDRS framework must deliver clear, objective, and globally consistent criteria for disclosure. The key battleground here is the definition of "Legitimate Interest."
If "Legitimate Interest," for instance, is narrowly defined by the dominant jurisprudence of the Global North, such as primarily intellectual property and large-scale corporate security, it will systematically exclude the crucial, everyday enforcement needs of the Global South.
ALSO READ:
Call for policy equity:
The path to a globally successful RDRS requires a unified approach that balances enforcement access with fundamental human rights and operational feasibility in emerging economies. This necessitates a strong policy commitment to three core principles: predictability, digital rights, and operational equity.
Predictability for local fighter:
The core of my submission is a plea for predictability for the common good. The proposed RDRS framework must deliver clear, objective, and globally consistent criteria for disclosure. The key battleground here is the definition of "Legitimate Interest."
If "Legitimate Interest," for instance, is narrowly defined by the dominant jurisprudence of the Global North, such as primarily intellectual property and large-scale corporate security, it will systematically exclude the crucial, everyday enforcement needs of the Global South.
ALSO READ:
The RDRS policy must therefore explicitly define "Legitimate Interest" to be inclusive of essential local regulatory, journalistic due diligence, and consumer protection needs. This ensures the service operates as a low-barrier mechanism for all legitimate actors, regardless of their geopolitical location or financial clout. Failing to do this means we are building a "predictable" system that only delivers predictable outcomes for those already well-equipped to navigate the global policy landscape.
Integrating privacy by design for digital trust:
The discussion over disclosure must never lose sight of the individual domain registrant: the consumer or small business owner.
In emerging economies, trust in digital platforms and governance is often fragile. Any perception that the system cavalierly exposes personal data can undermine the very efforts to drive digital inclusion and economic participation.
To safeguard digital rights, the RDRS policy must prioritize rigorous data minimization principles, ensuring disclosure is strictly limited to the minimum amount of nonpublic data necessary to satisfy the requestor's demonstrated legitimate interest, thereby preventing function creep.
To safeguard digital rights, the RDRS policy must prioritize rigorous data minimization principles, ensuring disclosure is strictly limited to the minimum amount of nonpublic data necessary to satisfy the requestor's demonstrated legitimate interest, thereby preventing function creep.
Furthermore, the policy must mandate a robust, transparent, and linguistically appropriate notification mechanism for all registrants whose nonpublic data is disclosed. This transparency is the cornerstone of accountability and allows the individual to appeal or address potential misuse of their data.
The RDRS policy must implement robust notification and oversight mechanisms, ensuring the protection of the registrant’s privacy is baked into the disclosure process, not treated as an afterthought.
Operational equity for local implementers:
The technical policy alignment also touches upon the feasibility of mandatory RDRS participation for ICANN-accredited registrars and registries. While mandatory participation boosts the system's effectiveness, the policy must not impose an insurmountable operational burden on smaller entities.
African-based registrars and registries, critical nodes in the regional internet structure, often operate with fewer personnel and more constrained technical resources than their large international competitors. A complex or high-cost compliance framework risks pricing them out of the market.
For this reason, the policy framework should prioritize technical implementations that are cost-effective, simple to integrate, and sustainable for smaller, regional actors. This pragmatic approach ensures that the global goal of policy alignment does not inadvertently hinder the growth and diversity of the local domain name industry.
Final policy test:
As the latest deadline for comments approaches on December 15, 2025, the RDRS policy alignment is a chance to redefine who benefits from a structured data access system. Will it be a system that primarily facilitates the work of large global entities, or one that empowers the local consumer advocate and the police officer fighting scams in their neighborhood?
The voice of the Global South, emphasizing equity, resource reality, and fundamental digital rights, must not just matter; it must reshape the final policy. The success of the RDRS will eventually be measured not by how many requests it handles, but by how fairly and equitably it serves the entire global community.
The RDRS policy must implement robust notification and oversight mechanisms, ensuring the protection of the registrant’s privacy is baked into the disclosure process, not treated as an afterthought.
Operational equity for local implementers:
The technical policy alignment also touches upon the feasibility of mandatory RDRS participation for ICANN-accredited registrars and registries. While mandatory participation boosts the system's effectiveness, the policy must not impose an insurmountable operational burden on smaller entities.
African-based registrars and registries, critical nodes in the regional internet structure, often operate with fewer personnel and more constrained technical resources than their large international competitors. A complex or high-cost compliance framework risks pricing them out of the market.
For this reason, the policy framework should prioritize technical implementations that are cost-effective, simple to integrate, and sustainable for smaller, regional actors. This pragmatic approach ensures that the global goal of policy alignment does not inadvertently hinder the growth and diversity of the local domain name industry.
Final policy test:
As the latest deadline for comments approaches on December 15, 2025, the RDRS policy alignment is a chance to redefine who benefits from a structured data access system. Will it be a system that primarily facilitates the work of large global entities, or one that empowers the local consumer advocate and the police officer fighting scams in their neighborhood?
The voice of the Global South, emphasizing equity, resource reality, and fundamental digital rights, must not just matter; it must reshape the final policy. The success of the RDRS will eventually be measured not by how many requests it handles, but by how fairly and equitably it serves the entire global community.
No comments:
Post a Comment