<div dir="ltr">Some observations on ECJ's decision on Google right to be forgotten case in order to kick off our discussion on the proposed question. For an American lawyer, the ECJ's analysis is difficult to parse, but here's my takeaway:<div><ol><li>Although the case arose prior to GDPR's effective date, the court clearly analyzes the situation under both the Directive and the Regulation.</li><li>The discussion focuses substantively on consideration of the rights derived from Article 12 and 14 of the Directive (erasure and objection = right to be forgotten as interpreted by courts) and arising under Article 17 of the Regulation (erasure/right to be forgotten) and describes its job (question presented) as being to "determine the territorial scope which must be conferred on a dereferencing ..."</li><li>The decision does speak generally about the need to balance an individual's fundamental privacy rights against other fundamental rights, applying the principle of proportionality, so I don't think it is entirely fair to say that it has <i>no</i> application outside of the right to be forgotten context. Here the court seems to be saying that the balance, in the context of erasure, may come out in different ways depending on where the information is available (within the Union/outside the Union). And the fact that many countries don't recognize a right to be forgotten is part of that balance. It's not clear from the decision whether or how this would apply outside the erasure context.</li><li>The court concluded that Google was not required to de-reference the data outside of the EU so long as it took meaningful steps to prevent (or at least discourage) EU-based searchers to access the material through geo-fencing. </li><li>There's no suggestion that I could find that <a href="http://google.fr">google.fr</a> or <a href="http://google.de">google.de</a> could continue to provide links to the data to a searcher using a non-EU IP address.</li></ol><div>Is this correct? And, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the fact that some countries don't recognize a right not to have public whois should be part of the balance - but under the facts here, only with respect to access by users outside of the EU that is provided by Contracted Parties establishments located outside the EU. What would that mean in our situation? Would it change the balance to be applied by registries and registrars established exclusively in the EU or with respect to the in-EU processing activities of global registries/registrars? If not, what are the implications and, based on the conclusions reached by the epdp to date, do we want to spend some of our legal budget on asking the question?</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM Caitlin Tubergen <<a href="mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org">caitlin.tubergen@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Dear EPDP Phase 2 Legal Committee,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Please find below a list of action items from yesterday’s Phase 2 Legal Committee meeting.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11pt">ACTION ITEMS<u></u><u></u></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11pt">SSAD Questions under Discussion:<u></u><u></u></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></span></u></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"><li class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in"><b><span style="font-size:11pt">Q11</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt">: Brian, Margie, Thomas, and Volker to work together on reformulating Q11 based on the small group’s discussion around a staggered approach to disclosure, i.e., first, disclosure of list of domain names, rather than disclosure of all contact information associated with the domain names. <u></u><u></u></span></li></ol><p class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1"><li style="margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Right to be Forgotten</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">: Legal Committee to review the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62017CJ0507&from=EN" target="_blank">Google Right to be Forgotten case</a> and come prepared to discuss whether this case is relevant to the EPDP Team’s Phase 2 work; if yes, Legal Committee to formulate draft question to Bird & Bird.</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11pt">Legal Memo Summaries:<u></u><u></u></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1"><li class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt">Legal Committee to review and edit the clean drafts of the Phase 2 legal memo summaries in advance of the next Legal Committee meeting on <b>Tuesday, 19 November at 14:00 UTC</b>. Please find links to the memos below:<u></u><u></u></span></li></ol><p class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"><li class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:black;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt">Questions 1/2 (controllership/liability): <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wqEn6-PvvIOjcK5BxrVFi2HND4na2H-vE4jbKt00oCk/edit" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(149,79,114)">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wqEn6-PvvIOjcK5BxrVFi2HND4na2H-vE4jbKt00oCk/edit</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="color:black;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt">Question 3 (automation): <u></u><u></u></span></li></ol></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in"><u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(149,79,114)"><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SJu0Znem6fOybAKb19nB6cSSgaO6ZRfM3BpViX-wZA4/edit" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SJu0Znem6fOybAKb19nB6cSSgaO6ZRfM3BpViX-wZA4/edit</a></span></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="a"><li class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt">Question 4 (disclosure to LEA outside of the controller’s jurisdiction): <u></u><u></u></span></li></ol></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in"><u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(149,79,114)"><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1blfcicgJu_NBV9L3dtF9aRU28W5hjaXdVzCeVNwcoXA/edit" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1blfcicgJu_NBV9L3dtF9aRU28W5hjaXdVzCeVNwcoXA/edit</a></span></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11pt">Priority 2 Legal Questions<u></u><u></u></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></span></u></b></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="4" type="1"><li class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt">By <b>Friday, 15 November</b>, Legal Committee to reread the questions submitted for Priority 2 items. In reading the questions, Legal Committee to: <u></u><u></u></span></li><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"><li class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt">Determine if, based on the EPDP Team’s work to date, the question is still relevant and should be considered by the Legal Committee. If YES,<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt">Update the applicable Priority 2 worksheet to include a rationale as to why this question is relevant and should be posed to outside counsel.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ol></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:11pt">Please find a link to the <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/b.+Worksheets" target="_blank">Priority 2 Worksheet links</a>. Please note that within each worksheet, Support Staff has (i) indicated who is responsible for adding a rationale to each question and (ii) added cited text where applicable. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="5" type="1"><li class="gmail-m_4264149197630674129MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt">In advance of the next Legal Committee Meeting on <b>Tuesday, 19 November</b>, Legal Committee to review the Priority 2 questions for <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pS9Pibanj-Hp6LztZpeERtxdoLsnp4y_-do0vU5VJuw/edit" target="_blank">Accuracy and WHOIS ARS</a> and <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdtRLaNm5DiWR_EPei4Oi64FaDauIXEQhnF2Lm_NxbI/edit" target="_blank">City Field Redaction</a>. <u></u><u></u></span></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thank you.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Marika, Berry, and Caitlin<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-epdp-legal mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-epdp-legal@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-epdp-legal@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-legal" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-legal</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</blockquote></div>