[Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy] Preparation for today's Privacy Team meeting
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Apr 26 14:38:45 UTC 2016
On 4/26/2016 10:27 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
<<Thanks Kathy. I think they were all added by Lisa on the revised list
of questions that I just sent. Please let me know if that is not the
case.>>
Chuck,
The revised questions did reach everyone a few minutes ago, tx you very
much!
I've inserted the newest version below for easy reference....
Kathy
*Privacy Sub-Team – Draft 25 April 2016 [Kathy adds: Version 2]*
Eachteamtoconsidertheirtotaloutputtoaddressthefollowingquestions[1]
<imap://kathy%40kathykleiman%2Ecom@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com:993/fetch%3EUID%3E.INBOX%3E171548#_ftn1>:
(i)DidthisinputinventoryproduceanyinsightstoinformtheWG’sworkplan?
Draft response:
(ii)WhichinputsarelikelytobethemostrelevantduringWGdeliberationsandwhy[2] <imap://kathy%40kathykleiman%2Ecom@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com:993/fetch%3EUID%3E.INBOX%3E171548#_ftn2>?
Draft response (based on input received during 20/4 meeting):
·SAC 054, because [to be completed]
·EWG Recommendations, because [to be completed]
·The EU Data Protection Directive 1995 (the best known of all data
protection laws; the legal obligations of all countries in the EU)
·The Council of Europe's Treaty 108 on Data Protection (created in 1981,
and signed about 47 countries within and outside the EU, this is a key
founding document of comprehensive data protection laws)
·Professor Greenleaf's two articles (part of the same book) set out his
studies showing that the adoption of data protection laws is growing
rapidly -- and in 2015 the number of countries with comprehensive data
protection laws surpassed those without data protections laws. More than
a majority of the countries of the world have now adopted comprehensive
data protection laws and legal frameworks.
·[Schrems v.Data Protection Commissioner (2015)/EU-US Privacy Shield
(2016) - very recent cases and agreements which clearly show that
rigorous enforcement of EU data protection laws is on the rise by high
courts and their decisions are forcing new agreements to be negotiated
which raise the legal requirements for transferring data from the EU
countries to other parts of the world. The new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield
is an important example of these higher legal requirements. The Article
29 Working Party Opinion on the Privacy Shield -- only about two weeks
old -- is important for its discussion of these newest of major legal
data protection frameworks. ]
·Opinion 2/2003 on the Application of the Data Protection Principles to
the Whois directories is the Article 29 Working Party's opinion
expressly guiding ICANN on how to apply data protection laws and
frameworks to the Whois issues. What could be more "on point" for our
full Working Group's work?
·McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, a decision in 1995 by the US
Supreme Court, affirming the importance of anonymous speech in creating
an avenue for important, but unpopular and minority ideas to enter into
a country's robust political, cultural and artistic discussions. In this
decision, the US Supreme Court found that anonymity speech is a
protected under the US First Amendment and a person cannot be forced to
put her/his name and address on all of statements.
·Thick Whois PDP report, and the legal review presented to the
Implementation Review Team on Thick Whois (this is document #6 in the
list from the consolidated PDF) is highly relevant, since it represents
the most recent thinking from ICANN concerning the impact of
privacy/data protection laws on one aspect of the current RDS (a/k/a Whois).
(iii)Whichinputs,ifany,generatedthemostdiscussion withinthesmallteam?
Draft response:
(iv)Whichinputsmaybeobsoleteorsuper-cededbysubsequentwork?
Draft response:
(v)Whatinputgaps,ifany,mayneedtobeaddressedlater?
Draft response:
(vi)OtherkeytakeawaysfromthisinputinventorytheteamwishestosharewiththeWG
Draft response:
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy
> Kleiman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:16 AM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-privacy at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy] Preparation for today's Privacy
> Team meeting
>
> Tx Chuck for stepping in! The following documents have also been
> circulated to the Privacy subgroup and seconded (and expanded, I
> think) by Stephanie as exceptionally relevant from our subgroup work
> for the full Working Group. */Can we put them on the draft list for
> the upcoming meeting?/*:
>
> 1) The EU Data Protection Directive 1995 (the best known of all data
> protection laws; the legal obligations of all countries in the EU)
> 2) The Council of Europe's Treaty 108 on Data Protection (created in
> 1981, and signed about 47 countries within and outside the EU, this is
> a key founding document of comprehensive data protection laws)
>
> 3) Professor Greenleaf's two articles (part of the same book) set out
> his studies showing that the adoption of data protection laws is
> growing rapidly -- and in 2015 the number of countries with
> comprehensive data protection laws surpassed those without data
> protections laws. More than a majority of the countries of the world
> have now adopted comprehensive data protection laws and legal frameworks.
>
> 4) Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (2015)/EU-US Privacy Shield
> (2016) - very recent cases and agreements which clearly show that
> rigorous enforcement of EU data protection laws is on the rise by high
> courts and their decisions are forcing new agreements to be negotiated
> which raise the legal requirements for transferring data from the EU
> countries to other parts of the world. The new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield
> is an important example of these higher legal requirements. The
> Article 29 Working Party Opinion on the Privacy Shield -- only about
> two weeks old -- is important for its discussion of these newest of
> major legal data protection frameworks.
>
> 5) Opinion 2/2003 on the Application of the Data Protection Principles
> to the Whois directories is the Article 29 Working Party's opinion
> expressly guiding ICANN on how to apply data protection laws and
> frameworks to the Whois issues. What could be more "on point" for our
> full Working Group's work?
>
> 6) McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, a decision in 1995 by the US
> Supreme Court, affirming the importance of anonymous speech in
> creating an avenue for important, but unpopular and minority ideas to
> enter into a country's robust political, cultural and artistic
> discussions. In this decision, the US Supreme Court found that
> anonymity speech is a protected under the US First Amendment and a
> person cannot be forced to put her/his name and address on all of
> statements.
>
> Best regards,
> Kathy
>
> On 4/26/2016 10:09 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Hello Privacy Sub Team,
>
> I apologize for the late notice on this. I had hoped that David
> would have sent this earlier but for some unknown reason, probably
> beyond his control, he was unable to attend the Leadership Call
> yesterday and hasn’t responded to email messages since then.
>
> On today’s call you as a team will have 45 minutes to discuss the
> questions listed below. The team will be asked to formulate
> responses to each of the questions in the coming week and today’s
> meeting will be used to get that process started. Please think
> about all the summaries of the documents that have been reviewed
> for “privacy” and be prepared to share your initial responses to
> the questions on today’s call. Hopefully that will motivate list
> discussion in the coming week so that the team can present more
> complete responses in the WG call on May 3^rd .
>
> Note that the Privacy Team is scheduled for the following time
> slot today: 16.15 – 17.00 UTC. If David is able to participate,
> I will let him lead the discussion if he is able to do so. If
> not, I will do it.
>
> If you have any questions, please let me know.
>
> Chuck
>
> *Privacy Sub-Team – Draft 25 April 2016*
>
> Eachteamtoconsidertheirtotaloutputtoaddressthefollowingquestions[1] <#_ftn1>:
>
> (i)DidthisinputinventoryproduceanyinsightstoinformtheWG’sworkplan?
>
> Draft response:
>
> (ii)WhichinputsarelikelytobethemostrelevantduringWGdeliberationsandwhy[2]
> <#_ftn2>?
>
> Draft response (based on input received during 20/4 meeting):
>
> * SAC 054, because [to be completed]
>
> ·EWG Recommendations, because [to be completed]
>
> (iii)Whichinputs,ifany,generatedthemostdiscussion withinthesmallteam?
>
> Draft response:
>
> (iv)Whichinputsmaybeobsoleteorsuper-cededbysubsequentwork?
>
> Draft response:
>
> (v)Whatinputgaps,ifany,mayneedtobeaddressedlater?
>
> Draft response:
>
> (vi)OtherkeytakeawaysfromthisinputinventorytheteamwishestosharewiththeWG
>
> Draft response:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list
>
> Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [1] <#_ftnref1>Please see ‘*Plan****to****consolidate****summaries
> and**complete &present teamoutputs*
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58734473/RDS-InputTeams-Plan-12April-updated.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1460488904000&api=v2>*’
> *for further details on the overall agreed approach for sub-teams.
>
> [2] <#_ftnref2>Note, this does not mean that other inputs are not
> considered – this is just intended to facilitate the WG’s
> prioritization of documents to consider first in relation to the
> finalization of the work plan and subsequent deliberations.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy/attachments/20160426/0d5799af/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy
mailing list