[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] EPDP: Geographic distinction

[Alan Greenberg]

For GDPR it's residence that counts, not citizenship. If you move to Europe your privacy is protected by GDPR. And a German citizen living in the US get no benefits.

Where you are taxable is another issue altogether. At one point I was living and working in the US. I was a non-resident of both the US and Canada and taxable in both.

Alan

--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On October 30, 2018 12:12:12 AM EDT, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Jonathan.

For my own clarification, with EU citizens working and living all over the world for various reasons and varying lengths of time, what is the actual definition for "resident of the EU",
Although I am a NZ citizen and live part-time in NZ, I am not considered resident there because I don't pay tax in NZ. I work and pay tax in the Cook Islands and am considered (by NZ) to be a Cook Island resident.

M

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:12 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
I'm inclined to say restricted if for no other reason than we'll eventually have a bunch of GDPRs that are slightly different.

On 10/29/18, 9:36 PM, "GTLD-WG on behalf of Alan Greenberg" <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20181030/3c381bfe/attachment.html>