[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: IMPORTANT

Sat Oct 14 10:05:09 UTC 2017

To add more on Paul message, regulations can be more specific about how to
achieve purposes while directive  specify  general purposes as an umbrella.

Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.

Le 14 oct. 2017 10:48, "Paul Keating" <paul at law.es> a écrit :

> A *directive* is a legal act of the *European* Union, which requires
> member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of
> achieving that result. It can be distinguished from *regulations* which
> are self-executing and do not require any implementing measures.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 13 Oct 2017, at 22:05, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please remember that there is a difference between a Regulation (which
> GDPR is) and a Directive (which is what e-Privacy is). I think this
> distinction is important in this conversation. Thanks
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:59 pm, jonathan matkowsky <
> jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net> wrote:
>
> So I am trying to piece this all together. It seems like there may be a
> possibility that the eprivacy directive will eventually be updated by the
> regulation but that there is still intense debates over the regulation,
> that GDPR doesn’t trump the directive itself, and that there may be
> exceptions in the directive for a public database when GDPR comes into
> effect.
>
> If the above is true than GDPR may not actually cover the public Whois
> when it comes into effect unless and until the regulation comes into effect
> (which is still being debated and likely won’t be resolved by the time GDPR
> comes into effect) reconciling inconsistencies between GDPR and the
> applicable privacy directive that has some kind of exception for a public
> directory?
>
> Again, it’s imperative we get clarity around this issue to do our work
> properly.
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:29 AM theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> https://www.privacytrust.com/guidance/gdpr-vs-eprivacy-regulation.html
>>
>> Eprivacy seems to be delayed though
>> https://iapp.org/news/a/libe-eprivacy-vote-delayed-juri-
>> itre-and-edps-weigh-in/
>>
>>
>> Theo
>>
>>
>> On 13-10-2017 20:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> I believe the Art 29 group has commented on this matter, please check
>> their website for the relevant documents, as I don't believe we have
>> included them in our document respository.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2017-10-13 14:16, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> the Privacy Directive, as I understand it is not superseded by GDPR
>>
>>
>> I presume you are referring to the European Union's e-Privacy Directive
>> (2002/58/EC). If so, from what I understand it is currently being updated
>> so to be consistent with the GDPR. As of last month the proposed revisions
>> were with the Council of the European Union. I'm not sure what movement
>> there has been since then.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: IMPORTANT
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 1:51 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 12:51
>> From: jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net
>> To: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> <consult at cgomes.com>,
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>
>> Chuck, I don’t understand how anyone can share government perspective,
>> and not represent a group in doing so.
>>
>> I wanted to know whether leadership team has decided to conduct a DPIA,
>> and if so, whether you are using the UK’s guide. I would think while it
>> makes sense to be looking at the purposes of collection, what is primary
>> and secondary cannot be the focus because that presupposes knowing who the
>> controller is. We have not yet decided that as a working group. The memo
>> did not necessarily take into account the role of offering accreditation
>> services and ICANN’s mission.
>>
>> But it appears whether it’s primary or secondary doesn’t matter for
>> purposes of defining purposes of collecting each data element.
>>
>> We are not defining the purposes of collecting Whois data but the data
>> elements of the next generation of Whois. That’s what I meant the other day
>> regarding RDS.
>>
>> To do that, we are not limited to the data elements that currently exist
>> as when we go through this exercise to fulfill ICANN’s mission from ICANN’s
>> perspective including all those involved in cybersecurity, or to offer
>> accredited registration services. The primary purpose of accredited
>> services is to fulfill the mission, and to provide that staple of a service
>> to those that register names with an accredited registrar. It seems we need
>> to carefully consider not only Spec 3 to the 2013 RAA but also Paragraph 14
>> to the 2017 global amendment to the registry agreement which says unique
>> DNS records may be supportable in the RDS if RDAP supports it. We therefore
>> need to know what RDAP can support, and at the very least need to consider
>> all elements from RFC 7485. This is not a simple exercise, and will take
>> **significant** time.
>>
>> As we undertake this, we must know from WS law firm what role the public
>> directory service plays in the Privacy Directive, as I understand it is not
>> superseded by GDPR, and Whois is a public directory. This is critical
>> analysis we are possibly missing. Can you ask them to address this ASAP
>> please?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:35 AM Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We have 34 volunteers at present; it would help a lot if we could get a
>>> lot more so that teams will not have to cover more than one of the nine
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks much to the 34 of you who have volunteered.  I hope many more
>>> will complete the poll and volunteer in the remaining 6 or so hours of the
>>> poll.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are particularly low for the government perspective.  Remember, team
>>> members are not being asked to represent any group but rather to share
>>> their understanding of the perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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, October 10, 2017 10:19 AM
>>> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 10
>>> October Meeting
>>> *Importance:* High
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In follow-up to this week’s WG meeting, *all RDS PDP WG Members* are
>>> encouraged to participate in the following poll:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5LXJRF3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline
>>> reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66086772/
>>> Poll-from-10OctoberCall.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *This poll will close at COB Wednesday 11 October.  Expressions of
>>> interest gathered through this poll will be used form drafting teams.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that you *must be a WG Member* to participate in polls. If
>>> you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first
>>> contact gnso-secs at icann.org to upgrade to WG Member.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Matkowsky
>>
>> ****************************** ****************************** *******
>> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the
>> designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary
>> information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are
>> not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this
>> message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply
>> e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> ****************************** ****************************** *******
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://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
>
> --
> Jonathan Matkowsky
>
> ************************************************************ *******
> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated
> recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and
> may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated
> recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you
> receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete
> this message. Thank you.
>
> ************************************************************ *******
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171014/add5d573/attachment-0001.html>