[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners

Mon Sep 25 16:02:21 UTC 2017

well said Michael.  +1.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Dotzero <dotzero at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Ayden that using GDPR as a baseline is probably the best
> approach available. Where I have a problem is with some of the "absolutist"
> statements that some have made as to what GDPR means in practice. In the
> past I've had the opportunity to speak with privacy officials from various
> countries and in msot cases they seem reasonable and understand that the
> there is a tension between privacy (which is not an absolute) and other
> concerns such as security (think proportionality). What we seem to have
> lacking in the group is a willingness to honestly discuss the trade offs
> and ways in which we can meet competing needs/requirements ("There will
> never be free privacy provider registrations". There is no doubt in my mind
> that it is possible to find general consensus on outcomes that privacy
> authorities would find acceptable. The way to do this is to document the
> supporting thinking to the approaches taken. For example, the right to be
> forgotten is based on consent. There are other basis for collecting
> information. Does the collection for RDS fall under consent or does it fall
> under one of the other basis for collecting information? This is perhaps a
> better way to frame the discussion than simply staking out absolutist
> positions.
>
> Michael Hammer
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Erica,
>>
>> That is a good question.
>>
>> My view is that GDPR is the best baseline that we have. I say for this
>> for two reasons. Firstly, because the Council of the European Union has
>> advised the European Commission that it cannot negotiate away privacy
>> rights in trade agreements. And secondly, as I touched upon in an email a
>> few days ago, over 100 countries now have data protection laws, many of
>> which were modelled after the European Union’s 1995 Data Protection
>> Directive. It seems possible to me that a desire to emulate best practices
>> could see these laws, based upon the earlier 1995 standard, updated to
>> reflect the standard now set by GDPR.
>>
>> I am happy, of course, to hear alternative perspectives on this issue.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data
>> Protection and Privacy Commissioners
>> Local Time: 25 September 2017 1:46 PM
>> UTC Time: 25 September 2017 12:46
>> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>
>>  It is clear that the PDP will have to be aware of and plan for GDPR-like
>>> protections (and not limited to Europe).
>>>
>>
>> Jumping back to Kris' comment, and the reference to other privacy
>> regulations in various countries (i.e. South Africa), do we know for
>> certain that GDPR is our best baseline? For example, perhaps there is a
>> different regional set of regulations that are an even lower common
>> denominator that would ensure compliance not only with GDPR, but other
>> regions as well - and, hopefully, future laws. Possibly this has been
>> spoken about before (I'm still rather new here), but I thought it may be
>> worth confirming since so much of our information flow, generally speaking,
>> tends to come from the US and the EU over other regions.
>>
>> Within the contect of ICANN, there is no other way to do this but through
>>> a GNSO PDP, and hopefully we can actually complete this and move forward.
>>> How timely we do it will depend on how willing we are to work together to
>>> reach consensus.
>>>
>>
>> Well said.
>>
>> Best,
>> Erica
>>
>> Erica Varlese | .blog Shepherd @ KKWT
>> Email: erica at my.blog
>> Skype: evarlese
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Volker Greimann <
>> vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>>
>>> With the new proposals for whois privacy provider accreditation
>>> currently in the works and the costs attached to that program both in aded
>>> requirements that have to be followed and the accreditation cost, this
>>> service will never be "free".
>>>
>>> Volker
>>>
>>> Am 23.09.2017 um 15:47 schrieb John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
>>>
>>> Is one of there ways of exploring how to resolve the issue including
>>> making whois privacy for free for individual registrants?
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Bambenek
>>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 21:06, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Without in any way detracting from the concern for ICANN transparency
>>> and the need for keeping our PDP informed, I think it is important for us
>>> to recognize a few things:
>>>
>>>    - The GDPR is set to go into effect in May 2018.
>>>    - While I am cautiously hopeful that the RDS PDP WG will improve
>>>    progress in our work, there is no way we will be close to done by May 2018.
>>>    - In the meantime, contracted parties will be faced with some
>>>    serious conflicts between the terms of their agreements with ICANN and the
>>>    GDPR that could result in significant fines if they continue to comply with
>>>    their ICANN agreements.
>>>    - Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable for ICANN staff to be
>>>    exploring ways to resolve this dilemma until policy work can be completed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounce
>>> s at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Vayra,
>>> Fabricio (Perkins Coie)
>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2017 8:16 AM
>>> *To:* Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>;
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data
>>> Protection and Privacy Commissioners
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Appreciate this feedback, Andrew.  Simply put, my concern is that these
>>> independent and misinformed conversations will result in bad decision
>>> making that will run counter to our efforts here in this duly-constituted
>>> PDP WG that is following the standard ICANN processes for developing policy
>>> -- if not render them useless altogether.  Which in turn highlights my
>>> earlier comment that this side-show effort from ICANN runs counter to the
>>> bottom up / standard ICANN processes for developing policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe it's just me making a mountain out of a molehill, but Stephanie
>>> echoing these concerns on the last call encouraged me to reach out to my
>>> fellow WG members to see if others share the concern and wanted to act on
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Others?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounce
>>> s at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Andrew
>>> Sullivan
>>> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:09 AM
>>> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data
>>> Protection and Privacy Commissioners
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 02:51:44PM +0000, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > I couldn’t agree more with Stephanie and find it incredible that
>>> ICANN, despite our ongoing efforts and the plethora of published community
>>> concerns, are continuing with the approach of rushing to discussions with
>>> Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners “half-cocked.”  Putting aside the
>>> apparent widely shared view that this approach is misinformed and
>>> dangerous, it’s simply redundant of and does not take advantage of our work
>>> within this PDP process  -- one could even say that it runs counter to the
>>> bottom up and community led initiative on RDS/WHOIS.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what the problem is supposed to be.  We are a
>>>
>>> duly-constituted PDP WG that is following the standard ICANN processes
>>>
>>> for developing policy.  If other parts of ICANN want to talk to data
>>>
>>> protection and privacy commissioners, or activists in favour of
>>>
>>> publishing all personal data available in the universe, or privacy
>>>
>>> activists who think the DNS should be closed in favour of onion
>>>
>>> routing, or the committee of the Present King of France and the Easter
>>>
>>> Bunny, why should we care?  In the event (for which I have diminshing
>>>
>>> hope) that we publish a report that is actionable by the GNSO, the
>>>
>>> ordinary ICANN policy mechanisms will grind forward no matter what
>>>
>>> meetings people have had.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We can best contribute to that end, in my opinion, by focussing on
>>>
>>> getting done the work that we are supposed to be doing, rather than
>>>
>>> worrying about all the other things other people might be doing.  By
>>>
>>> concentrating on this and making some progress, we might even reduce
>>>
>>> the temptation of others to second guess this process.  At the rate we
>>>
>>> are currently moving, we appear to be destined to deliver something
>>>
>>> right after heat death of the universe, and I suggest that that pace
>>>
>>> is partly because there is no issue on which people are willing to
>>>
>>> focus, come to a clear conclusion, and then let that conclusion stand.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I therefore urge that we focus on our task and not make our job harder
>>>
>>> than it already is by attending to outside distractions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>>
>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.ican
>>> n.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=XRWv
>>> QHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=6lUxzkhJPN5qts-
>>> Nve5TYqxoGjP81z1kCvXgsmw-MiQ&m=9eU57wIVscyGuvbIbm2BAi8LELlV
>>> rSQBl5k9N2YJxfQ&s=EWf3FrLMoZXzDzHkrW30uyrwfH-GkQk1TGt5Jc2ndKs&e=
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
>>> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
>>> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
>>> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>>>
>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>
>>> Volker A. Greimann
>>> - Rechtsabteilung -
>>>
>>> Key-Systems GmbH
>>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>>
>>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>>>
>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
>>>
>>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>>> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>>>
>>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu
>>>
>>> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Volker A. Greimann
>>> - legal department -
>>>
>>> Key-Systems GmbH
>>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>>
>>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>>>
>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
>>>
>>> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>>> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>>>
>>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu
>>>
>>> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170925/997166e0/attachment-0001.html>