[Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy] Privacy sub-group

Kiran Malancharuvil Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com
Mon Mar 28 18:53:22 UTC 2016


I am disappointed by the tone that this discussion has taken already.  Perhaps we can eliminate the prejudgment of positions that should be welcomed and freely examined.  Ayden, there are many intelligent positions which support the balance of legitimate privacy interests with consumer protection and anti-fraud/phising/malware interests.  Arguably, even the laws you cite are not as broadly applicable as you are attempting to present them here, taking into account the need to balance interests.

Frankly this dialogue is a fantastic demonstration of why complex legal issues should not be debated within ICANN working groups.  We should seek independent review of these issues and (most importantly) the application of these laws to Whois/Registration Directory Services.  This important issue shouldn’t be a he said/she said.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415.222.8318 (t)
415.419.9138 (m)
www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com/>



From: gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Fabien Férdeline via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 10:53 AM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-privacy at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy] Privacy sub-group

Fully understand that, Greg, but the fact that ICANN is headquartered in a territory with objectively poor privacy laws does not mean we cannot look to respect the wishes of the 108 countries who do offer a general right to information privacy. Sorry if my views on this issue have come out, but yes, I support the principles of privacy-by-default, which in economically-advanced economies outside of the United States is not an abstract concept.

Best wishes,
Ayden
[Image removed by sender.]




On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
Ayden,

EU rulings do not necessarily impact the law in the rest of the world, much less California.  I would not categorize an attempt to embrace EU principles as a "race to the top" nor would I categorize those principles as "international best practices."  Certainly, we as a group should not adopt such attitudes.  But, hey, it's nice to know where you stand.


Best regards,

Greg Shatan



[http://hilweb1/images/signature.jpg]





Gregory S. Shatan | Partner
McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP

245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167
T: 212-609-6873<tel:212-609-6873>
F: 212-416-7613<tel:212-416-7613>
gshatan @mccarter.com<mailto:gshatan%20 at mccarter.com> | www.mccarter.com<http://www.mccarter.com/>

BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK
EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA  | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC




On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline <gnso-rds-pdp-privacy at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy at icann.org>> wrote:
Hello all,

I would like to introduce some material relating to the 'right to be forgotten' in Europe. Here's a court judgement<https://links2.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/Y6pG8Inj7cxRfeEQg?rn=IyZy9mLu5WYjlGQ5NWY2lmcw1CckBXLzRmct82cudmI&re=IyZy9mLu5WYjlGQ5NWY2lmcw1CckBXLzRmct82cudmI> <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=11654>.

The protection of personal data in Europe is seen as a fundamental right on equal standing with all other human rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that any and all data processing must be subject to stringent proportionality assessments.

It has been unsuccessfully argued that allowing users to delete their data is an affront to other fundamental rights such as free speech. The Court of Justice of the EU has consistently ruled that if and when the privacy interests of the data subject outweigh the public interest, the individual should be able to enforce his or her 'right to be forgotten'.

This decision is something we should carefully consider when looking at how long we retain information for. Certainly once a domain name has expired, it would be difficult to justify under these rulings the continued storage of the sensitive personal information of registrants.

I appreciate that EU rulings do not necessarily impact Californian law, but hey, why not have a race to the top and adopt international best practices in privacy law… :-)

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:37 AM, David Cake via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy <gnso-rds-pdp-privacy at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy at icann.org>> wrote:
Welcome all of you to the Privacy sub-team. Thanks to all of you for volunteering.

Our task is first to collect information on privacy issues relevant to registration data. Then we will go on to decide how best to present that information for use of the working group - we may consolidate, summarise, prioritise etc in order to make the important information easily available. Hopefully the privacy experts on this group will help us locate the most important material, and make it easily digestible to the broader working group.

This is a link to the RDS PDP WG document that describes the approach the WG agreed upon  https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730879/RDS-PDP-Proposed-Summary-Approach.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_58730879_RDS-2DPDP-2DProposed-2DSummary-2DApproach.pdf&d=CwMBAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=u1EVRiHe_hJc7jxNs5HvrA_j6PFk6zDIgTHzeV5HW-I&s=2ky2gNfugoilw7hdnuB-Li1SPS7b_5IFQFq5Dm1QeEk&e=>
At this early stage, we are in collection mode - please send documents that you think will be valuable to the group. If you add a bit more information for context as to why you think it would be useful, that will probably be very helpful for later work.

Looking forward to working with you all.

David



_______________________________________________
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


Ayden Férdeline
+44.77.8018.7421<tel:%2B44.77.8018.7421>
[cid:image003.gif at 01D188E6.DBF558C0]


_______________________________________________
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



Ayden Férdeline
+44.77.8018.7421
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy/attachments/20160328/f581a940/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: ~WRD000.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy/attachments/20160328/f581a940/WRD000-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1307 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy/attachments/20160328/f581a940/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6549 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy/attachments/20160328/f581a940/image002-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: image003.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy/attachments/20160328/f581a940/image003-0001.gif>


More information about the Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list