[RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Privacy issue

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks Erika,

On reading your note, I realized that there is an implication that I 
missed. As I mentioned, by the time we issue our report, the GDPR 
deadline will likely have passed. But that means we will know to a 
large extent if ICANN has been successful in addressing the issue or 
not, and out of that there may well come some recommendations.

Alan

At 15/08/2017 10:41 AM, Erika Mann wrote:
>Alan -
>
>I agree with your approach.
>
>Few things to consider in addition to what you recommend. GDPR is such
>a drastic law with immense extra territorial law implications that we
>might not be able to avoid it completely because of the way ICANN
>responded to it and the implication it may have on ICANN and its
>ecosystem.. I would agree with you that we should develop
>recommendations that are high level and should work in all (most)
>legal environments.
>
>Nonetheless I wouldn't rule out to touch, when appropriate, on the way
>the GDRP was handled to allow future processes to evolve. There will
>always be a new GDRP-alike legislation showing up on the horizon. And,
>a proper response to such a future challenge should become ingrained
>in ICANN's DNR.
>
>Thanks,
>Erika
>
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:12 AM, Alan Greenberg 
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >
> > At our meeting two weeks ago, we discussed privacy and the place 
> it holds in our review process. I have thought about it a lot since 
> then, and would like to summarize my feelings.
> >
> > It is clear in my mind that:
> >
> > - the current WHOIS implementation ignores privacy issues, and 
> this has been a known issue for a long time;
> > - for whatever reasons, ICANN has chosen to largely ignore the 
> issue, even though it has become of increasing importance to many 
> parties and in multiple jurisdictions;
> > - the GDPR deadline has raised the importance and priority of the issue;
> > - ICANN is working on a GDPR response, and while opinions differ 
> on whether their plans are reasonable or appropriate, the deadline 
> of 25 May 2018 will almost surely have passed by the time we 
> deliver our final report;
> > - as important as GDPR (and its penalties for non-compliance) are 
> it is not the only privacy issue that ICANN is facing or will face 
> and we need to address the generic issue in any recommendations we 
> make; and finally
> > - our recommendations need to be high level and not attempt to 
> provide detailed policy or implementation which is the domain of 
> the GNSO PDP and its follow-on activities.
> >
> > Although this message is being sent on my own behalf as a RT 
> Member, it has been reviewed by both Vice-Chairs and they are in 
> general agreement.
> >
> > I welcome thoughts on this.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
> > RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt