[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] My notes from the discussion with the Data Protection Commissioners on 13 March 2017

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree, it could be useful.  Although one of the DP authorities (sadly 
I cannot remember which one) did point out that it was not a given that 
any ccTLD approach is necessarily  legally correct. But the point is, 
various among them have consulted their DPAs and have a different 
approach than ICANN.

Stephanie

On 2017-03-20 18:15, Deacon, Alex wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I seem to remember (through a haze of jetlag) a discussion regarding 
> getting input and thoughts from the ccTLD community – especially those 
> based in the EU.    Id like to suggest we pursue this.
>
> After an informal chat with a European ccTLD operator during one of 
> the breaks it was clear their input (based on concrete experience) 
> would be quite useful.
>
> Alex
>
> On 3/20/17, 12:12 PM, <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of 
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
> I agree with Scott, gated access was an early agreement.   It is worth 
> noting that the data commissioners have asked for this before. 
> (Offhand I cannot remember which documents, but I think it was  a 
> rhetorical question from Buttarelli....they are aware of the tiered 
> access that some ccTLDs operate.)
>
> Regarding the numbers cited for COE's convention 108, I would have to 
> check the transcript, but I recall the mention of over a hundred 
> countries which have based their data protection laws on the COE 
> convention. This number is different than countries who have ratified 
> the convention....Canada, for instance, relied on the principles in 
> both OECD Guidelines and Convention 108 for our privacy legislation, 
> but are only observers, and have not signed on to the treaty.  This is 
> doubtless the case for many other countries.  The point here is that 
> the basic principles have been adopted in most data protection laws.
>
> Many countries of course based their legislation on the EU Directive 
> 95/46 because they wanted to be deemed adequate at the same time, but 
> 95/46 also was based on/congruent with COE 108.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2017-03-20 07:11, Hollenbeck, Scott via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>
>     *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>     [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes,
>     Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>     *Sent:* Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:33 AM
>     *To:* icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>;
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>     *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] My notes from the
>     discussion with the Data Protection Commissioners on 13 March 2017
>
>     Thank you very much for doing this Ayden.  I found it very helpful
>     and share a few personal comments here.
>
>     “Data controllers should not fragment their policies depending on
>     the territory.  (GB, JC)”
>
>     ·While I do not question that this point was made, I suspect that
>     when we get into the policy and implementation phases we will
>     likely encounter some issues where different jurisdictions have
>     conflicting requirements and we may have to localize some
>     requirements by jurisdiction.  If I remember correctly, I think
>     the EWG addressed this and that RDAP makes this possible to do
>     from a technical point of view.
>
>     ““The major treaty on data protection is Convention 108. And
>     Convention 108 is open
>
>     for signature to countries across the world. Uruguay has signed
>     it. Tunisia has signed
>
>     it. And another ten countries are now observers. And it is that
>     convention [not the
>
>     European Union’s GDPR] which has actually provided the standard
>     with which more
>
>     than another 100 countries around the world have followed.” (JC)”
>
>     ·I could be mistaken but I thought that there were over 50
>     countries that signed on to Convention 108.  Am I mistaken on that?
>
>     [SAH] I found the list of signatories here, Chuck:
>     https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/108/signatures?p_auth=fz15vACH
>
>     If I’m counting correctly there are 47 countries identified as
>     states that have signed and ratified the convention. Three others
>     are identified as “Non-Members of Council of Europe” who have
>     ratified.
>
>     ““Is there any other less intrusive method compared to mandatory
>     publication that
>
>     would serve the purpose of the WHOIS directories without all data
>     being directly
>
>     available online to everybody?” (GB)”
>
>     ·Isn’t this essentially a conclusion that the EWG arrived at?  I
>     would appreciate it if EWG members would comment on this.
>
>     [SAH] This EWG member’s recollection is that we recommended
>     implementation of gated access to serve the purpose “without all
>     data being directly available online to everybody”.
>
>     Scott
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170320/67eac92d/attachment-0001.html>