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

[mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW]

Well, national privacy laws will likely ultimately land on an international agenda. Whether that goes to WTO, WIPO or Unesco is moot. In any event, probably not concluded in my lifetime!  Have fun ;-))

CW


PS: The power of GDPR is that the EU has already spent decades harmonising our national laws.



> El 30 de octubre de 2018 a las 22:02 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> escribió:
> 
>     I'm not convinced that without the GDPR penalties, the community or the contracted parties would have invested the time to address this properly. But then we will never know.
> 
>     With regard to laws in other jurisdictions, we are putting a lot of effort into a "relatively" simple implementation for GDPR, but I am afraid that once we start paying attention to other laws and regulations we will find differences and potentially conflicts and the implementation is going to get a lot harder. I have a perverse sense of humour, but I am not sure I would call it "fun"!
> 
>     Alan
> 
>     At 30/10/2018 04:22 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
>         > > +1 Tijani.
> >         The problem comes from the fact that ICANN is reactive not proactive. The discussion about privacy has being going on for years, well before GDPR, and we are on record for positions about privacy.
> >         Incidentally, if other governments start taking position and develop their own criteria and imposing different rules on the contracted parties - as it seems already the case with the proposal in front of the US Congress - we re going to have fun.
> >         R
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >             > > > On 30.10.2018, at 12:06, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn > 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
> > > > 
> > > >             > > >             _______________________________________________
> > >             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
>     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/cpwg/attachments/20181031/7daf1a7a/attachment.html>