[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The States are Getting into the Act

[Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal]

I support & Agree to your View Sam.
This is exactly what my thoughts are on the topic. So Perhaps there could be
a Methodology where a balanced approach, in line with conveniences,
securities etc. be taken and provide a robust self reliance rather than
waiting for the Authorities to act as this will only be after any misuse.
Infant we could get views from the diff. governments on this too.

We should be able to collect views on it and collectively find a way to
protect privacy, uphold the rule to privacy ­ globally and still be safe.
BUT definitely You last two lines ­ Yes this is the New ICANN and No there
is no choice. Train Wreck? Hope Not. :-)

-VA
TheVaibhav.com <http://thevaibhav.com>

From:  <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco
<sam at lanfranco.net>
Date:  Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 8:06 PM
To:  <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The States are Getting into the Act

    
 

  
           I have a brief comment to follow up on Volker¹s comments, the
spirit of which I completely support. I recognize that my comments may be
unpopular. I have kept a low profile in these discussions and I fear that
despite heroic work and dedication on the part of all, there is a serious
risk of this turning into a train wreck in practice.
 
 Registries and registrars operate under the existing laws of the countries
in which they reside. Increasingly they cannot conduct business in countries
unless they have a business presence in that country. This gives countries
power over registries and registrars, including the power to override
elements of contracts with ICANN. How can this reality be reconciled with
extending the most extensive privacy protection level to customers in ways
that are workable for all providers and their customers?
 
 ICANN can identify the absolute minimum data set required by ICANN. ICANN
does not have the country by country experience or exposure of registrars
and registries. It could participate in DNS industry led efforts to deal
with registries and registrar data requirements, but those efforts are
probably best held outside ICANN and (horror of horrors) will likely involve
multilateral efforts to reconcile inter-country differences where ICANN
could/should engage both as a stakeholder and as an advocate for the common
good in Internet governance.
 
 In short, ICANN should (but probably won¹t) focus on ICANN¹s minimum needs,
and then work elsewhere in partnership, as a stakeholder and offer wise
counsel, within the larger multilateral and country by country struggle for
customer privacy and security in ways workable for all providers and their
customers. Does this sound like a new ICANN? Yes. Is there a choice? I think
not. Might I be wrong? Maybe. A train wreck? Hope not.
 
 Sam L. 
 
 
 
On 6/22/2016 7:06 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
 
 
>    
> 
> Frankly, as a provider that is handing over private details of my customer I
> do not care about anything less than the maximum required protection in any
> jurisdiction that may be applicable. So what if the states have lower privacy
> protection requirements than Europe and India has none? The only acceptable
> result in my eyes is an accomodation of the most extensive privacy protection
> level that may be required.
>   
>    
> 
> If we start looking at the countries which do not care about the privacy of
> their citizens, then we will get nowhere. Only be adhering to a maximum
> standard can we ensure that the result is workable for all providers and their
> customers.
>     
> 
> Volker
>  
 
 
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160622/23ec3b29/attachment.html>