[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal Inquiry to ICANN

[Stephanie Perrin]

With great respect, the US has systematically been attempting to get 
WHOIS data output into recent trade agreements, including for ccTLDs, 
for a number of years.  so we are already there....

Stephanie Perrin

On 2018-02-15 08:58, Dotzero wrote:
> To simply assert that the extraterritorial nature of GDPR is the end 
> all and be all falls into the realm of the absurd. If another 
> jurisdiction passes legislation mandating publication of identifying 
> (personal) information in whois, what then? What happens if you are 
> "Trumped" by U.S. legislation? Do you really want to see a trade war 
> or worse? We are dealing with a complex and difficult situation that 
> is the equivalent of wrestling a jello snake in a vat of oil. We are 
> best served by seeking outcomes that accommodate GDPR as best as 
> possible and recognize that other jurisdictions do not necessarily 
> follow the same principles as GDPR. I say this even though I agree 
> with many of the principles embodied in GDPR.
>
> Michael Hammer
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>
>     I do not support this as a path forward.
>
>     We have seen repeatedly that the legal advice we have been issued
>     has been ignored by those who are unhappy with the message
>     contained within it.
>
>     And I disagree with the assertion that there is a "clear lack of
>     consensus" on the question of the extraterritorial nature of the GDPR.
>
>     To continue dwelling on this question will ensure that we never
>     make any progress as a working group.
>
>     — Ayden
>
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     On 15 February 2018 12:01 AM, Michael Palage <michael at palage.com
>     <mailto:michael at palage.com>> wrote:
>
>>     Chuck,
>>
>>
>>     As one of the original authors to the this extraterritorial
>>     thread, I welcome all the legal interpretation by both lawyers
>>     and non-lawyers in connection the scope to Article 3 of the GDPR.
>>     I  think it is fair to say there is a clear lack of consensus. 
>>     Therefore I would like to propose the following.  Allow the group
>>     to comprise a list of legal questions regarding this issue and
>>     forward it to ICANN.org and ask of them the following:
>>
>>
>>      1. Provide the list of questions to Hamilton for a response
>>      2. Have ICANN legal provide a response to these same questions
>>
>>
>>     The reason for Number 2 is that John Jeffrey made very clear in
>>     the last webinar that he does NOT agree with all of the Hamilton
>>     analysis.  I think us ICANN volunteers toiling away in the PDP
>>     coal mine are entitled/deserve an answer to these questions to
>>     allow us to move forward with more productive work It does the
>>     group no good for a bunch of well-intentioned individuals lacking
>>     the requisite legal training to debate these issues.
>>
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>
>>
>>     Michael
>>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180215/1b70efcd/attachment-0001.html>