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

Tue Mar 7 10:05:02 UTC 2017

I agree, Tjabbe,

We covered this within the PPSAI WG, and tho the WG recommended there 
should be no distinction it does not exclude Registrars from applicable 
law, that make such a distinction. So the scope is larger then just the 
EU.

Thanks,

Theo

Tjabbe.BOS at ec.europa.eu schreef op 2017-03-07 09:05 AM:
> Dear all,
> 
> Although I understand the background of question 4, I would argue that
> it is a bit out of place in this document.
> 
> The 2000 European Union e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) that appears
> to be referred to in question 4 does not concern data protection, and
> is therefore outside of the mandate of European Union Member States'
> data protection authorities. Moreover, as the European Union data
> protection framework only applies to information relating to an
> identified or identifiable natural person, European Union Member
> States' data protection authorities are not likely to be in a position
> to discuss the obligation of service providers to make available their
> contact information under Article 5(1) of that Directive.
> 
> Some of the other panellists from countries outside the EU might still
> be interested and in a position to discuss related issues, but I
> suppose they won't be aware of too many details of the application of
> European Union legislation.
> 
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031
> 
> Best,
> Tjabbe
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 12:26 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; met at msk.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg