<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+2"><font face="Lucida Grande">Could we please
clarify 1) why we are picking our top 5 and 2) what we mean by
relevant? if we are evaluating ICANN's role as a data
controller in dictating the collection, use, and disclosure of
information, the 2013 RAA is probably the most relevant
document. IF we are trying to help colleagues from different
backgrounds understand what we are talking about in terms of
data protection, Kathy's list is an excellent one. We need
both, in my view. Hence my slowness in getting off the mark,
I am confused. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+2"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers Stephanie</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-04-25 15:19, Gomes, Chuck
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A4B5A81@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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]-->
<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">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 25, 2016 9:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org</a><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,tand <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
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-GB">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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org">Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>