[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] My notes from the discussion with the Data Protection Commissioners on 13 March 2017
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Mar 20 23:20:01 UTC 2017
I agree, it could be useful. Although one of the DP authorities (sadly
I cannot remember which one) did point out that it was not a given that
any ccTLD approach is necessarily legally correct. But the point is,
various among them have consulted their DPAs and have a different
approach than ICANN.
Stephanie
On 2017-03-20 18:15, Deacon, Alex wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I seem to remember (through a haze of jetlag) a discussion regarding
> getting input and thoughts from the ccTLD community – especially those
> based in the EU. Id like to suggest we pursue this.
>
> After an informal chat with a European ccTLD operator during one of
> the breaks it was clear their input (based on concrete experience)
> would be quite useful.
>
> Alex
>
> On 3/20/17, 12:12 PM, <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
> I agree with Scott, gated access was an early agreement. It is worth
> noting that the data commissioners have asked for this before.
> (Offhand I cannot remember which documents, but I think it was a
> rhetorical question from Buttarelli....they are aware of the tiered
> access that some ccTLDs operate.)
>
> Regarding the numbers cited for COE's convention 108, I would have to
> check the transcript, but I recall the mention of over a hundred
> countries which have based their data protection laws on the COE
> convention. This number is different than countries who have ratified
> the convention....Canada, for instance, relied on the principles in
> both OECD Guidelines and Convention 108 for our privacy legislation,
> but are only observers, and have not signed on to the treaty. This is
> doubtless the case for many other countries. The point here is that
> the basic principles have been adopted in most data protection laws.
>
> Many countries of course based their legislation on the EU Directive
> 95/46 because they wanted to be deemed adequate at the same time, but
> 95/46 also was based on/congruent with COE 108.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2017-03-20 07:11, Hollenbeck, Scott via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes,
> Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:33 AM
> *To:* icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] My notes from the
> discussion with the Data Protection Commissioners on 13 March 2017
>
> Thank you very much for doing this Ayden. I found it very helpful
> and share a few personal comments here.
>
> “Data controllers should not fragment their policies depending on
> the territory. (GB, JC)”
>
> ·While I do not question that this point was made, I suspect that
> when we get into the policy and implementation phases we will
> likely encounter some issues where different jurisdictions have
> conflicting requirements and we may have to localize some
> requirements by jurisdiction. If I remember correctly, I think
> the EWG addressed this and that RDAP makes this possible to do
> from a technical point of view.
>
> ““The major treaty on data protection is Convention 108. And
> Convention 108 is open
>
> for signature to countries across the world. Uruguay has signed
> it. Tunisia has signed
>
> it. And another ten countries are now observers. And it is that
> convention [not the
>
> European Union’s GDPR] which has actually provided the standard
> with which more
>
> than another 100 countries around the world have followed.” (JC)”
>
> ·I could be mistaken but I thought that there were over 50
> countries that signed on to Convention 108. Am I mistaken on that?
>
> [SAH] I found the list of signatories here, Chuck:
> https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/108/signatures?p_auth=fz15vACH
>
> If I’m counting correctly there are 47 countries identified as
> states that have signed and ratified the convention. Three others
> are identified as “Non-Members of Council of Europe” who have
> ratified.
>
> ““Is there any other less intrusive method compared to mandatory
> publication that
>
> would serve the purpose of the WHOIS directories without all data
> being directly
>
> available online to everybody?” (GB)”
>
> ·Isn’t this essentially a conclusion that the EWG arrived at? I
> would appreciate it if EWG members would comment on this.
>
> [SAH] This EWG member’s recollection is that we recommended
> implementation of gated access to serve the purpose “without all
> data being directly available online to everybody”.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto: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/20170320/67eac92d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list