[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Letter from Article 29 WP to ICANN Org

[Greg Shatan]

The letter is at least as interesting in what it doesn’t say as what it
does.  It doesn’t address significant concerns and issues such as the
distinction between legal and natural persons, the gutting of meaningful
access to the WHOIS records of non-EU registrants, and whether the
elimination of public access to registrant e-mail address is absolutely
necessary (regardless of the impact).  It appears that these are not
addressed for a very simple reason — ICANN did not put these issues before
the Article 29 Working Party.  The interim models in the Calzone and the
Cookbook did not propose any distinction between legal and natural persons,
or continuing to require the status quo for non-EU registrant information
(for non-EU registrars/registries or more broadly), or including registrant
e-mail addresses in public WHOIS.

The Working Party responded only to what ICANN proposed.  If ICANN had
taken these issues on board and presented them as alternatives, perhaps we
would have a more useful and meaningful response. Instead we have a
document that is important simply because of who authored it, but not
because of what it says.

Several major concerns and criticisms voiced by significant portions of the
community thus remain unanswered and unanalyzed, and still stand.

Gre


On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 5:30 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Because no one this time can dispute the authority of the source.  It's
> the guidance ICANN has been seeking for long from DPAs. There you have it.
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 04:34:39PM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>> >
>> > I know some will ask what is new. Nothing, if you read the recent paper
>> from
>> > the Berlin Group, as the Article 29 Working Party notes in their letter
>> how
>> > useful they found this report.
>>
>> So then why add it?  It's more stuff that everyone is supposed to have
>> read, and it contributes nothing new to the considerations.  That
>> seems like an example of, "Everything has been said, but not by
>> everyone," and I think it is wasteful.
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180413/4e8f3a57/attachment.html>