[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] EPDP: Geographic distinction

[Jonathan Zuck]

Well, that’s until the EU recognizes the problem and passes some cybercrime directive at which point they’ll have to move.

From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Hadia El Miniawi via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Reply-To: Hadia El Miniawi <hadiaminiawi at yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:31 AM
To: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] EPDP: Geographic distinction

Hi Alan and all,

It is not that I agree or disagree but with regard to the geographic location of the registrant I see that the question was posed incorrectly from the beginning. The location of the registrant alone does not determine whether GDPR applies or not, the location of the controller or the processor is what matters in this regard. I see this as an unnecessary debate, registrants trying to avoid those who combat cyber crime will register with European based registrars/re-sellers.

Best
Hadia


On Wednesday, October 31, 2018, 7:33:01 PM GMT+2, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:


At the moment we are quite divided on this issue.  If you cannot be
on the CPWG call in 2 1/2 hours, please comment here. We need to
report back to the EPDP on Thursday.

Alan

At 29/10/2018 09:32 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>GDPR is applicable to residents of the EU by companies resident there
>and worldwide.
>
>One of the issues is whether contracted parties should be allowed or
>required to distinguish between those who are resident there and elsewhere.
>
>There is agreement that such distinction should be allowed, but EPDP
>is divided on whether it should be required. The GAC/BC/IPC want to
>see the distinction made, and at least one very large contracted
>party does already make the distinction. Other contracted parties are
>pushing back VERY strongly saying that there is virtually no way that
>the can or are willing to make the distinction.
>
>The current (confusing) state of the working document is attached.
>
>Which side should ALAC come down on?
>
>- Restrict application to those to whom GDPR applies?
>- Apply universally ignoring residence?
>
>As usual, quick replies requested.
>
>Alan
>
>_______________________________________________
>CPWG mailing list
>CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>_______________________________________________
>registration-issues-wg mailing list
>registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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/cpwg/attachments/20181101/bcd88061/attachment-0001.html>