[council] Article 29 WP Letter to ICANN

[Ayden Férdeline]

Completely agree. There is no provision within the GDPR that permits a Data Protection Authority to defer from enforcing the law, so for ICANN to ask for a moratorium on enforcement is inappropriate. The GDPR has been coming for years, it is not new or unexpected, ICANN simply didn't do its homework. And I found it offensive and inappropriate that ICANN would resort to calling upon "fake news" in their biased press release, using this emotive language to convey a false sense of urgency. I think the Article 29 Working Party will see right through it as well.

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 13 April 2018 2:38 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:

> Some personal comments:
> - WHOIS is already fragmented today. There are clusters of similar patterns like new gTLDs, RIRs etc., but for most of the names and numbers objects, there are specifics of what is presented and in what conditions. Considering the limited number of RSPs, even different interpretations wouldn't generate that many differences overall. And even the deployment of RDAP doesn't solve that, it just standardises the line protocol used to request and get the information.
> - It is unreasonable to expect DPAs to issue a moratorium, since GDPR also allows citizens to challenge DPAs actions or inactions. It's asking others to put a rope around their neck, and notably at a matter where the same DPAs challenged ICANN decisions for decades.
> - The legal action possibility is curious, since its basic ask would be "Please allow me to break the law". Not something prone to injunctions or similar fast-paced decisions, although a merit decision in favor of ICANN could happen. It could serve, though, as emotional comfort to the community. Perhaps EU lawmakers could be a better avenue to get an exemption equating WHOIS to land registries and similar bodies.
> - Their letter looks like "sudden death" for the accreditation model that was being built. But it could be reborn in a different fashion.
>
> Rubens
>
>> On 12 Apr 2018, at 19:23, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> This letter from the Article 29 Working Party to ICANN is well worth a read:
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr18-en.pdf
>>
>> ICANN has also published a post here, expressing disappointment that "the letter does not mention our request for a moratorium on enforcement of the law until we implement a model."
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list
>> council at gnso.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180412/3b313f27/attachment.html>