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

Mon Mar 20 23:24:20 UTC 2017

Was a question asked of the data protection authorities if whois privacy where a *free* option, would that satisfy them?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 18:20, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> 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 on behalf of 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] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:33 AM
>> To: icann at ferdeline.com; 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
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170320/c87685f2/attachment-0001.html>