[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners
John Bambenek
jcb at bambenekconsulting.com
Tue Sep 26 16:09:29 UTC 2017
Never having been in it, I can't attest to it... but if THAT needs
fixed, then it should be. Why architect policies around a broken process
in the same organization?
On 9/26/2017 10:54 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
> John
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, as others will attest, the current process for
> conflicts with local law does not work as the “triggers” are unusable.
> The policy has been in place for more than a decade and nobody has
> been able to use it. The recent changes to it unfortunately have not
> improved that situation.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com/
>
> http://blacknight.blog/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
> Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of John Bambenek
> via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *John Bambenek <jcb at bambenekconsulting.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday 26 September 2017 at 13:49
> *To: *Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with
> Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners
>
>
>
> We just need to pick a reasonable baseline. There already is a process
> to handle conflicts with WHOIS and local laws
> (https://whois.icann.org/en/revised-icann-procedure-handling-whois-conflicts-privacy-law).
>
>
>
> There is no reasonable way to pick some way to accommodate them all
> absolutely. Picking one set blindly also smacks of regionalism. ICANNs
> mandate is to protect the stability and security of the internet.
> Let's focus on the mission and not the secondary concerns.
>
> --
>
> John Bambenek
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 07:34, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
> With all due modesty, I am an expert in privacy legislation,
> having worked in this field since 1984 in most capacities (and
> most particularly, directing the drafting of the federal law here
> in Canada). TBDF provisions appear in most data protection law,
> they are also covered in many national constitutions and it is
> therefore impossible to actually separate out TBDF from any
> privacy impact assessment of ICANN policy and implementation. I
> don't think an explicit mention in our Charter is at all
> necessary, we cannot examine privacy without looking at TBDF.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>
> On 2017-09-25 09:24, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> I am far from an expert on privacy legislation. GDPR is
> probably as good a base to look at as any, and perhaps better
> than some. I do not think we are in a position to survey all
> country's privacy legislation to ensure that we are in
> compliance, and even if we did, laws change over time. So we
> will need to put in place a framework that can adapt to local
> requirements.
>
> One issue that I do not think has been discussed (and is not
> even mentioned in our charter) is transborder data flow.
> ALthough that may be more associated with implementation, I
> suspect we will have to think about it, if only to say that
> implementation needs to address it. In that case, European
> legislation may not be the most stringent.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 25/09/2017 08:57 AM, Ayden Férdeline 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
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:erica at my.blog>
> Skype: evarlese
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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-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 Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie)
>
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 8:16 AM
>
> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> >;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto: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-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 Andrew Sullivan
>
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:09 AM
>
> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=6lUxzkhJPN5qts-Nve5TYqxoGjP81z1kCvXgsmw-MiQ&m=9eU57wIVscyGuvbIbm2BAi8LELlVrSQBl5k9N2YJxfQ&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
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>
>
>
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
> 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>
>
> https://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 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
>
> /
>
> <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
>
> www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>
>
>
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>
>
>
> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>
>
>
>
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>
>
>
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
>
>
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
>
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
>
>
> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.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 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
>
> /
>
> <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
>
> www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
>
> updated:
>
>
>
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>
>
>
> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>
>
>
>
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>
>
>
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
>
>
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
>
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
>
>
> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.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
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>
> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hvd+12IHFEDC5zG2SFGJUI8wzX09iFX8918xshWCQo/rid5WRmWbOSDBecFyjNyKMeBpbcVirQ6f821KkUUeGsZynHEE1O0FFdMERWm0q/Vqwzdu+L9IxmvRP11LCIVh
> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>
> ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
--
John Bambenek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170926/e28fa29a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list