[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] WSGR Final Memorandum
John Bambenek
jcb at bambenekconsulting.com
Thu Sep 28 03:35:14 UTC 2017
My bad. Brazil is a partner not a member.
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 27, 2017, at 10:10 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>
>
> Nope, Brazil is not an OECD member. See http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/ ; the only South American OECD country is Chile.
>
> Rubens
>
>> On Sep 27, 2017, at 9:49 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>> Brazil is also OECD, and a previos commenter already discussed their
>> laws with regard to whois. Who are we to say as a matter of internet
>> governance that certain country's laws don't matter?
>>
>>
>>> On 09/27/2017 06:54 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>>> Folks
>>>
>>> I am saddened that this discussion has deteriorated into an EU vs US argument. So a reminder: the EU Directive is based on OECD privacy principles developed back in 1980 (updated in 2013). The principles are all there - the need for a purpose for the collection of data, the use and disclosure of data only for the purposes stated - and the data subject told - at the time of collection - the purpose for which data will be collected (clearly, only for the purposes of collection). So the 35 OECD members - including the US - should have privacy protections in place that reflect those principles. And while other countries are not necessarily OECD members, those OECD principles are the basis for other privacy protections as they are being implemented globally. So this is not a US vs EU discussion. It is a discussion is about ICANN rules that do not reflect the growing awareness of and regulation of privacy globally.
>>>
>>> (and before anyone points to the variations in national privacy regulation - yes, I am well aware of that, But I am happy to go with GDRP not just because they are perhaps the most stringent, but because they reflect internationally accepted privacy principles)
>>>
>>> Holly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 28 Sep 2017, at 8:22 am, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, If ICANN cannot figure out how to make a proper functioning WHOIS policy, we have to remember that the community at large will, and then simply, ICANN will loose relevance on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> No one passed a law that a mail server had to have a functioning PTR record, (well yes, some international spam legislations clearly spelled out the need for clearly specifying the operator) but if you want to send email today, functionally you need a PTR record.
>>>>
>>>> Only problem is, that often it is the biggest players that set those standards, and it is the role of organizations like ICANN to level the field, and make sure that directions aren't dictated by the biggest players on the block, and never more so in a world of consolidation and cloud providers.
>>>>
>>>> I think it was Yahoo that was one of the first big players to simply not accept connections from IP(s) with no PTR, and I know we were one of the early adopters to that strategy..
>>>>
>>>> So, I can see a day that if privacy advocates and/or EU legislation fears prevent such a Best Practice as proper WHOIS records, the service providers will simply choose practices, such as 'you cannot access our service unless you have public whois information available'.
>>>>
>>>> It would be far better if ICANN can understand the importance of that need, and make a statement that everyone can get behind and point to, that levels that field, in 'spite' of possible contradictory privacy information.
>>>>
>>>> Let's just simple keep these two conversations separate, one should NOT affect the other, this isn't a privacy vs information publishing standards issue, we can have both.
>>>>
>>>> (And again, I assert that simply 'informed consent' can always deal with any situations where they conflict)
>>>>
>>>> -- Michael --
>>>>
>>>> PS, my concern is that this lengthy wrangling prevents real work from getting done, and the participants who are integral to this conversation will fall by the way side, and the lobbyist's will simply wear them down ..
>>>>
>>>> Some of us have real jobs too..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 17-09-27 02:58 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>>>>> A simple policy proscription would be, for instance, to say under US law if you get a domain under the control of a US registrar, we need you to consent to full disclosure. Don't like it, pick a European ccTLD. I don't advocate that, mind you, but that's the kind of policy balkanization could produce.
>>>>> j
>>>>> On 09/27/2017 04:31 PM, Paul Keating wrote:
>>>>>> I am failing to understand how such a walled-garden approach will solve anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.EU registrars/registries would still have to deal with GDPR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.Registrars are not aided by the distinction since they would still end up with EU customers and EU registrant data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PRK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>>
>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:03 PM
>>>>>> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
>>>>>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] WSGR Final Memorandum
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming for argument's sake that's true without taking any
>>>>>> position as I'm still catching up from a week ago, I'm not sure
>>>>>> this should be dismissed without consideration as a possibility,
>>>>>> although obviously not by any stretch of the imagination ideal -->
>>>>>> non-EU registrars block EU registrants, and registries contract
>>>>>> with non-EU registrars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br
>>>>>> <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:17 PM, John Horton
>>>>>>> <john.horton at legitscript.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much of this problem goes away if we all agree that EU-based
>>>>>>> registrars should henceforth only be allowed to accept
>>>>>>> registrants in the EU. Aside from the effect on EU
>>>>>>> registrars' revenue, what's the logical argument against that
>>>>>>> from a policy perspective?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, isn't the purpose of the GDPR to protect _EU
>>>>>>> residents_?
>>>>>> That's correct, but the conclusion is not. Non-EU registrars
>>>>>> are also subject to GDPR if targeting EU customers, which
>>>>>> could be as simple as providing services in EU languages and
>>>>>> accepting registration transactions from the EU.
>>>>>> So, for the problem to go away non-EU registrars would need to
>>>>>> block EU registrants, and registries would only be able to
>>>>>> enter contracts with non-EU registrars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So EU users would either be happy using numeric IP addresses,
>>>>>> or develop a naming system of their own. Then we would have
>>>>>> balkanisation, this time actually including the original balkans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rubens
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *******************************************************************
>>>>>> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the
>>>>>> designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or
>>>>>> proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality
>>>>>> protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not
>>>>>> review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in
>>>>>> error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this
>>>>>> message. 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
>>>> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
>>>> "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
>>>>
>>>> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
>>>> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
>>>> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
>>>> those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20170927/7568a5c8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list