[Gnso-epdp-legal] Recent ECJ Ruling on the Geographic Scope of GDPR

[Margie Milam]

Hi-

Here is an additional question to pose to B&B.

In light of last week’s landmark Right to Be Forgotten Case regarding the reach of GDPR:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-09/cp190112en.pdf<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fcuria.europa.eu-252Fjcms-252Fupload-252Fdocs-252Fapplication-252Fpdf-252F2019-2D09-252Fcp190112en.pdf-26data-3D02-257C01-257CMarksv-2540microsoft.com-257C0fc10369b86b4fb54cdb08d745d81ad8-257C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47-257C1-257C1-257C637054666773941720-26sdata-3DNI3tdOPeY-252BKTh-252BGNq-252BGVBJ7JEyHOMjV-252BQEYwH9c8wOc-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DOGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw%26r%3DqQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA%26m%3DqgqaikAoSyJzElcg7C-u09feQBWajzhT1JT2LBv05jg%26s%3D-QyuGV_8gizC8zk-E7dFCMCxcdVT203qOuAdjGPfoxY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7CMarksv%40microsoft.com%7C2925832daae546b63e0408d745f74dba%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637054800792829946&sdata=ALzi1uDF5x5irDIKa3ui6EtrkvGBaDVWz%2B6dPNOjK%2B8%3D&reserved=0> , where the Court clarified the applicability of GDPR outside of the EU, and stated:
“However, it states that numerous third States do not recognise the right to dereferencing or have a different approach to that right. The Court adds that the right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right, but must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. In addition, the balance between the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, on the one hand, and the freedom of information of internet users, on the other, is likely to vary significantly around the world.”

Does this ruling affect:

  1.  The advice given in Phase 1 Regarding Territorial Scope<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fcommunity.icann.org-252Fdownload-252Fattachments-252F102138857-252FICANN-252520-2D-252520Memo-252520on-252520Territorial-252520Scope-252520.docx-253Fversion-253D1-2526modificationDate-253D1552176561000-2526api-253Dv2-26data-3D02-257C01-257CMarksv-2540microsoft.com-257C0fc10369b86b4fb54cdb08d745d81ad8-257C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47-257C1-257C1-257C637054666773951714-26sdata-3D85hB3n-252BgHO5zltdzTm5Pmd-252FUeu0T7OL-252F4bywkCcb7dg-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DOGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw%26r%3DqQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA%26m%3DqgqaikAoSyJzElcg7C-u09feQBWajzhT1JT2LBv05jg%26s%3D8TCbK69KiXCKrPpNO-KL9rKcsRkCISjzvCof8uKQBRs%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7CMarksv%40microsoft.com%7C2925832daae546b63e0408d745f74dba%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637054800792839937&sdata=exadgrNqqCKVQ%2FLTBKZXXJMnBkfDjA9SNSTaJuX%2FH4Q%3D&reserved=0>?
  2.  The advice given in Q1-2 with respect to liability (Section 4 of the memo)?
In light of this ECJ decision, using the same assumptions identified for Q1 and Q2, would there be less risk under GDPR to contracted parties if:

        *   the SSAD allowed automated disclosure responses to requests submitted by accredited entities for redacted data of registrants and/or controllers located outside of the EU, for legitimate purposes (such as cybersecurity investigations and mitigation) and/or other fundamental rights such as intellectual property infringement investigations (See Article 17, Section 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Feur-2Dlex.europa.eu-252Flegal-2Dcontent-252FEN-252FTXT-252F-253Furi-253DCELEX-253A12012P-252FTXT-26data-3D02-257C01-257CMarksv-2540microsoft.com-257C2925832daae546b63e0408d745f74dba-257C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47-257C1-257C1-257C637054800792819948-26sdata-3DRxgqL9eYdRavnaFqIDjzDOT4GPHJRSsmQ1-252Favz10vKw-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=VLG2NlF9SKlO5Br01dwddo_lA4oncgv7PkSSSsw8ZV4&s=fPD2dxvOeBSKNBXQT0rUNkNPmaova0kNQcFCii_4G6Y&e=>); and/or

        *   ICANN served as the sole entity making disclosure decisions for the SSAD, and directly provided access to the redacted data from a processing center outside of the EU (such as from ICANN’s Los Angeles Headquarters)?
 All the best,

Margie


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-legal/attachments/20190930/7e157981/attachment-0001.html>