<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">My apologies. There
is a lot of work involved here is dissecting what the decision
means in terms of jurisdictional issues. There are three
issues that are key in my view, just off the top, but I need
to study the document.</font></font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Where the
registrars are required to escrow data is critical if nation
states attempt to access it for law enforcement purposes,
outside an MLAT. Recall that EU registrars report difficulties
in getting their preferred escrow agents accepted in lieu of
Iron Mountain</font></font></li>
<li><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Where the RDS
(whether a central database or federated or completely
disaggregated) resides becomes important for law enforcement
access. <br>
</font></font></li>
<li><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Where the
Registrar, who has important data retention requirements
under the 2013 RAA, keeps its data becomes important.</font></font></li>
</ul>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I hope this helps.
Once I digest the document, I promise more detail. However,
this is an important development (pending a potential appeal
to the Supreme Court of course, or legislative change which
seems unlikely given the current congressional realities)</font></font><br>
</p>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-07-15 16:45, Andrew Sullivan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20160715204512.GD32398@mx2.yitter.info"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:46:10PM +0200, Volker Greimann wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think we all agreed earlier that there would not be a cut-off line for new
documents.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I, at least, was not advocating a cut-off. I was more pleading that,
when people offer new things that are supposed to offer some new
perspective, that there actually be some new perspective there. A
great deal of the material that I've read so far is mostly the same
things over and over. I hardly see how that helps us narrow the use
cases or figure out what the right thing to do is.
It won't do to try to argue from the size of the stack of reports
arguing for one view or the other. I think Chuck's suggestion is a
good one: if you add something new to the pile, it'd be helpful to say
what's new about it apart from the authors.
Best regards,
A
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>