<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 26, 2017, at 6:54 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" class="">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">I want to point out something on page 17, namely this quote:</p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">"We think the best way to avoid conflicts would be to try to bring the data processing practices of ICANN and the registrars in line with EU data protection law as much as possible, and to give primacy to EU data protection requirements when they clash with those of other jurisdictions."</p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">This is a patently offensive claim of European imperialism. One ventures down this road with great consequences.<br class=""></p><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">j</span></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I would get to the same conclusion but for different reasons. Currently there are two large clusters with different legal requirements: Europe and China. China has its own way to enforce their views on the value chain: if you don't do like they want you to, you can't sell there, and domains purchased outside China can simply be blocked by the firewall sitting between Chinese Internet and the global Internet and are ilegal for building websites (the main use case for domains nowadays). Unlike China, Europe doesn't have such capabilities, so they use laws and fines to make people behave in a certain way. By transferring responsibility to the business verticals that operate globally, it becomes an easier proposition to use that as a baseline. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>I can't tell if that was by design or an unexpected consequence, but whether we like it or not, it's a sound advice, IMHO. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>