<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I agree whole heartedly,
and although I am not at liberty to discuss what the EWG did
with respect to legal analysis, I believe I may say that in my
view it was very inadequate. We need a very balanced legal
analysis from many perspectives, and in my view until we bring
in legal experts from places like the Council of Europe and
the data protection authorities, we will not have done the
job. Outside counsel in the privacy field, if I may say,
would not be sufficient, as most lawyers practicing in this
area are what we refer to as privacy goalies, defending their
clients from possible complaints and attack. Even selecting
legal scholars could be fraught with controversy, but we
certainly need representation from this group as well.
Further complicating factors are that for the next couple of
years, many billable hours are to be had as Europe figures out
how to implement the Data Protection Regulation, and the upcoming
electronic communications privacy directive...getting
volunteers for this committee might be tough when there are so
many business opportunities for privacy lawyers.<span
class="moz-smiley-s1"><span>:-)</span></span> Perhaps it
might be useful if we set up a parking lot for legal
questions, so that we have a fulsome set of issues to discuss
when it comes time to create a legal forum. I have a few
already.....</font></font><br>
</p>
Stephanie<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-04-26 20:59, Greg Aaron wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3B35D67004B738418B4B266BCAFF6C387DB801@DAGN11b-e6.exg6.exghost.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">This note is especially directed to the WG
leaders. I am wondering at what point the Working Group
secures legal support.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our current round of document review
reminds me of how complex the legal issues are -- including
privacy and data protection law, law enforcement, contracts,
and legal jurisdictions. There is the expectation that our WG
will make policies designed to address various legal problems
and requirements, and that those policies will be in place for
years to come. So it is imperative that we get things right.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The WG has access to a number of documents,
and the WG has some fine legal experts on it, but this may not
be enough. Our legal-eagle members hail from certain
jurisdictions, and there may be gaps in their geographic
expertise. They also have day jobs and as volunteers may not
be able to do all the lifting and research that may eventually
be needed.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also see gaps in the ICANN processes to
date, and therefore in the resulting documents. In 2012 the
WHOIS Policy Review Team laid out some of the legal issues,
but it was not for that group to analyze the issues and
potential solutions in any depth. Then the EWG proposed a
specific solution, but provided fairly little in the way of
legal analysis and justification, and it is unclear what legal
advice the EWG received, beyond a memo prepared by the ICANN
legal staff. For example, the EWG report doesn’t even contain
a reference to EU Article 29.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The IANA transition was another complicated
issue, and the transition CWG received dedicated assistance in
the form of neutral outside legal counsel.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am curious about whether the RDS WG
leadership has given thought to this issue, and how to manage
it over time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With best wishes,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">--Greg Aaron<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">P.S.: Legal support also strikes me as an
excellent use of the nTLD application and auction proceeds
…although I suppose that’s another matter!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>