<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I think ‘relevant’ is a key word, a point that Lisa made to the leadership team a few days ago.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 25, 2016 9:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy] Docs most relevant in our Privacy Subgroup summary<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Hi All,<br>
I think we have been asked for our list of the most relevant documents for the Working Group from our Privacy subgroup. It is hard to choose from the excellent list and summaries prepared!
<br>
<br>
My thoughts are that the documents below provide the best overview of pivotal legal principles of data protection, show the enormous spread of these principles around the world (particularly recently), and give us guidance for interpretation of these principles
(including what it means to be a "data controller" and requires) are below. <br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
In answer to subgroup question "(ii) Which inputs are likely to be the most important [relevant] during WG deliberations and why?", I share:<br>
<br>
1) The EU Data Protection Directive 1995 (the best known of all data protection laws; the legal obligations of all countries in the EU)<br>
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)
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
4) </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">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.<br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Best regards, <br>
Kathy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>