[gnso-rds-pdp-data] Further summaries

[Ayden Fabien Férdeline]

Hi Benny,
I agree that we should be considering the new General Data Protection Regulation
which was adopted yesterday by the European Parliament. I would prefer to use
the term, “consumer protections”, though, in place of “demands”. This document
is very lengthy and I've only skim read a few sections, but it will certainly
require that we adopt a new lens on any activities which are either undertaken
in the EU market or which impact EU residents.
The two relevant files are below (they are around 400 pages in total):

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_5418_2016_INIT&from=EN 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_5419_2016_INIT&from=EN
Best wishes,
Ayden

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 9:32 AM, benny--- via gnso-rds-pdp-data gnso-rds-pdp-data at icann.org wrote:
Yesterday EU clubbed there new Dataprotection through so all memberstates and
Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein (EEC countries) have to follow. Guess we need
have a review of the new demands which are in use as per yesterday -- Med
vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen Benny Samuelsen Registry
Manager - Domainexpert Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar IANA-ID: 638
Phone: +46.852529100 Direct: +47.32260201 Mobile: +47.40410200 > On 15 Apr 2016,
at 10:24, gnso-rds-pdp-data at icann.org wrote: > > Looked at both didn't see
anything that may be useful from > > Article 29 WP 5 Recommendation 2/97 > … > >
There is one paragraph I may have missed from the article below > > ICANN's
public consultation on 2013 RAA Data Retention Specification Data Elements and -
Legitimate Purposes for Collection and Retention (17 April 2014) > … > >
Summary: > > 1. Retention of personal data originally collected for commercial
purposes, and subsequently retained for law enforcement purposes, has been the
subject of a recent landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice, which held
Directive 2006/24/EC to be invalid, as an unjustified interference with those
rights. The Court recognised that the retention of personal data might be
considered appropriate for the purposes of the detection, investigation and
prosecution of serious crime, but judged that the Directive 'exceeded the limits
imposed by compliance with the principle of proportionality'. It is reasonable
to expect requirements for retaining personal data to be subject to increasing
scrutiny and legal challenges in the EU. > > It specifies that EU law was under
review and was possible changing after 3/2014 where by a new General Data
Protection Regulation which is designed to replace Directive 95/46/EC and be
directly applicable in each of the twenty-eight EU Member States. There is
therefore now a more compelling need than ever before for ICANN to apply the
waiver of the retention period under the 2013 RAA Data Retention Specification
uniformly to all EU Member States as requested in the 'harmonised statement' of
the Working Party issued by letter of 6 June 2013. > Therefore my opinion will
be that if the above had happen then there was an expectation that ICANN was
going to have to abide by the new directive and ensure that these rules are
abide by within the EU or EC now this doesn't not mention anything for other
regions of the world like the Americas etc. but a possible argument of how the
laws have changed and been implemented for organisations to follow is described
above in the summary. > > Regards > > R. Padilla MSc. > > -- > Richard Padilla
MSc > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rds-pdp-data
mailing list > gnso-rds-pdp-data at icann.org >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-data
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-data mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-data at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-data

Ayden Férdeline +44.77.8018.7421
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-data/attachments/20160415/1e238a36/attachment.html>