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

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight]

+1

It’s not as simple as some people like to make out.

Also assuming that there is a direct registrant -> registrar relationship is silly and completely ignores a very large proportion of registrations that are handled by resellers of different kinds.

Regards

Michele


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
https://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg>
Date: Tuesday 30 October 2018 at 14:32
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] EPDP: Geographic distinction

With regard to the geographic location I think it is more complex,  an example of this complexity,  if the registry is outside of the EU and is processing data that belongs to persons outside of the EU but has a processor within the EU then GDPR still applies. (A processor might be a reseller)

Hadia

From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:50 PM
To: Tijani BEN JEMAA
Cc: CPWG
Subject: Re: [CPWG] EPDP: Geographic distinction

The issue is the 2nd one and the perceived risk of making a wrong decision. But the counter argument is that for every registration, the registrant indicates a country. And some contracted parties (such as GoDaddy with 35% of all .com registrations) already make that distinction.

Alan

At 30/10/2018 07:06 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:


Alan,
I do understand the contracted parties who push back for at least 2 reasons:

  *   the mobility of registrants
  *   the complexity of managing 2 kind of treatment

I though it was said in the beginning that the contracted parties should remain free to apply universally or only for the European subjects. This is in my opinion the best choice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
          +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Le 30 oct. 2018 à 02:32, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > a écrit :

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<RySG revisions Small Team #2 Geographic - updated.pdf>_______________________________________________
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/20181030/7883bd0a/attachment-0001.html>