[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Draft EPDP Response to the Interim Report

Cheryl Langdon-Orr langdonorr at gmail.com
Sun Dec 9 21:44:36 UTC 2018


Thanks for this Alan, and I am specifically pleased to see the
clarification on 'subjectability' to GDPR of so many of the Contracted
Parties now clarified by the EU Data Protection Board.

*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
  <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>



On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 07:24, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> The first draft of the EPDP Response is now uploaded. It is essentially
> the same as that presented on the CPWG call on 28 Nov 2018.
>
> One point on which there was significant discussion on the call was
> whether we should support geographic differentiation - that is, only apply
> redaction if the geographic location of the registrar/registry and the
> registrant warrant it or allow contracted parties ot redact for all
> registrations. When this was previously discussed, there was quite a divide
> between those who felt we should differentiate, and those who felt that a
> contracted party could decide whether to do it or not (ie a registrar, for
> instance) could decide to treat all registrants as if they were in the EU,
> and similarly a registrar outside of the EU (with *no* connection there)
> could also redact all data.
>
> One of the things that has changed is that the European Data Protection
> Board has recently issued a document making it clear that an organization
> with NO presence or processing in the EU, offering services through the
> web, could have EU-based customers and not be subject to the GDPR - *IF
> they do not explicitly target EU customers. Simple availability of a
> website in the EU does not constitute targeting. That take a large number
> of contracted parties who many of us had thought would be subject to the
> GDPR out of the game. See  *Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of
> the GDPR
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/99484375/edpb_guidelines_3_2018_territorial_scope_en.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1544386236959&api=v2>
> .
>
> On the CPWG when the question as ask about supporting geographic
> differentiation (oe Registrars/Registries should only redact when GDPR
> requires it, the overwhelming number agree (via check marks or voiced
> comments). This position is reflected in answers 86 and 89.
>
> Please add your comments on any of the replies to the wiki -
> https://community.icann.org/x/1wLuBQ.
>
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20181210/24b88f32/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list