[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners

[Lisa Phifer]

Regarding Q4:

The phrase "interact with the General Data Protection Regulation" was 
supposed to be deleted from Q4; strike this phrase and I believe the 
sentence reads as intended.

Q4 is indeed (as I understand it) intended to refer to registrars in 
their capacity as service providers - for example, when a registrar 
serves as a technical contact for a domain name. The question asks 
whether that EU directive requirement on service providers would also 
apply to registrars.


At 04:15 PM 3/6/2017, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Thanks for the quick feedback Steve.  I encourage Lisa and Susan to 
>respond but also inserted some responses of my own.
>
>
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
>Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 5:38 PM
>To: 'Lisa Phifer' <lisa at corecom.com>; RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
>
>
>
>Thanks Lisa.  A few quick reactions:
>
>
>
>(1)   As several members of the WG have repeatedly reminded us in 
>this and other ICANN contexts, some/many/most national data 
>protection authorities within the EU do not/will not/would rather 
>not render advisory opinions.  I understand that in fact there will 
>be few if any participants in either of these sessions whose job is 
>actually to enforce a specific national data protection law.  Even 
>so, questions asking for legal conclusions about violation of data 
>protection laws (or of the GDPR, which has not yet come into force) 
>in specific circumstances may not be the most constructive way to 
>proceed.  I especially marked the last sentence of Q.3 as a good 
>candidate for deletion.
>
>[Gomes, Chuck] Am I correct that you are suggesting that just the 
>last question in Q.3 be deleted, i.e., "If so, would entities that 
>collect and process this data be considered in violation of the 
>Directive and the GDPR?"  Regardless, please be ready to repeat this 
>suggestion in our WG call tomorrow so we can see if the WG supports 
>the deletion.
>
>(2)   The first sentence of Q. 4 seems a bit garbled.  In the second 
>and third sentences, should the references to "registrars" be 
>changed to "registrants"?  (I did not know there was any issue to 
>requiring registrars to make their contact information publicly 
>available, though not necessarily in the RDS itself.)
>
>[Gomes, Chuck] I will let Susan & Lisa respond to this, hopefully 
>before the WG call so that any edits made can be reviewed by the WG 
>in our meeting.
>
>(3)   Obviously there are more questions here than are likely to be 
>addressed in either the Monday or Wednesday sessions so will there 
>be any effort to prioritize them?
>
>[Gomes, Chuck] They fully realize that there are likely more 
>questions than can be covered, especially if their answers are 
>lengthy.  My hope is that some of the questions will be discussed in 
>the cross community session on Monday and that we can then just 
>discuss the remaining questions on Wednesday.  Even then, there may 
>be too many so if you have any suggestions regarding priority please 
>communicate them.  I will let Susan & Lisa respond regarding whether 
>they discussed priorities.
>
>
>
>Thanks and I hope these thoughts are still timely.
>
>
>
>Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
>Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
>
>T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com
>
>Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com
>
>1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>
>
>
>THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY 
>FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. 
>THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS 
>PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN 
>INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, 
>DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY 
>PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR 
>TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM 
>YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
>
>
>
>From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer
>Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:36 PM
>To: RDS PDP WG
>Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
>
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>A proposed final version of this WG's questions for data 
>commissioners is attached and also posted on our wiki:
>
>*       RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8clean.pdf and
>*       RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8markup.docx
>
>Thanks to all who contributed questions and feedback to this list of 
>questions. Please refer to the v8markup document to see how feedback 
>was incorporated to produce the v8clean PDF.
>
>Once finalized during this week's WG call, a clean final list will 
>be transmitted by Chuck to the moderator of the cross-community session:
>
>         Monday 13 March 3:15-4:45pm CET (http://sched.co/9nnl)
>
>That list will also be provided to invited speakers for our 
>Wednesday F2F session:
>
>         Wednesday 15 March 1:45-3:00pm CET (http://sched.co/9npc)
>
>Best regards,
>Lisa
>
>
>