<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<small>In addition to agreeing with Chuck’s assessment here I want
to go a bit further from a pan-global (larger than ICANN)
perspective. The Internet <b>IS</b> global and in its short life
we have ample evidence that it is not solely the domain of saints
doing good things. The need for personal (and other) data
protection at many levels is beyond obvious. <br>
<br>
The EU’s GDPR is a milestone along the path of data protection for
individuals. DP regulations, by country and region will continue
to evolve, and despite different regional sensitivities, will
emulate each others best practices. It is no more Euro-centric to
use the GDPRs and other “best practice” data protection regimes to
help reshape WHOIS and develop an RDS, than to complain that
110Volts and 220 Volts are too Euro/North American centric, and
call for 55Volt or 165Volt systems. That is where we are on this
global Internet road today.<br>
<br>
This will not be the last time adjustments have to be made in both
DP regulations and practice, and in the WHOIS/RDS policies adopted
by ICANN. The major risk here is to ICANN and its remit.
Individuals (civil society) and governments will continue to press
for and evolve DP regimes. <br>
<br>
If ICANN wants to stay relevant in that process it has no choice
but to do two things. First, within itself it takes the periodic
revision of its own data management policies in light of emerging
DP regimes and technologies (e.g. blockchain). Second, bigger and
beyond this wg, it has to figure out how ICANN, as ICANN, operates
as a stakeholder within the wider policy discussions with regard
to Internet governance, having a voice in wider Internet
governance policies that impact on ICANN.<br>
<br>
My prediction, based on a reading of history beyond ICANN, is if
ICANN does not rise to the occasion on both of these fronts, it
will have a shortened life, may survive as a technology provider,
and become a footnote in the history of the evolution of global
Internet governance. <br>
<br>
Sam Lanfranco<br>
<br>
<br>
want to call attention to the following paragraph:<br>
<br>
"The memo highlights the complexity of these issues in the domain
name<br>
space, and concludes that the current open, publicly available
WHOIS<br>
services cannot remain unchanged. The WHOIS system has to become
adaptable<br>
to address the GDPR from the European perspective, as well as
other changing<br>
regulations around the world."<br>
<br>
After input from Data Protection experts, the Wilson Sonsini memo
and now<br>
this memo, do any in the WG disagree with this statement?<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/19/2017 8:51 AM, Chuck wrote:</small>
<blockquote cite="mid:01d401d348d8$fbd87880$f3896980$@cgomes.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><small>I want to call attention to the following paragraph:
"The memo highlights the complexity of these issues in the domain name
space, and concludes that the current open, publicly available WHOIS
services cannot remain unchanged. The WHOIS system has to become adaptable
to address the GDPR from the European perspective, as well as other changing
regulations around the world."
After input from Data Protection experts, the Wilson Sonsini memo and now
this memo, do any in the WG disagree with this statement?
Chuck</small>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>