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

[Greg Shatan]

Sorry, that should have been signed Grec.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:30 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20180413/9546143a/attachment-0001.html>