[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] another document that might be of interest

[Paul Keating]

The only thing I can agree with in this email is that DPAs indeed are
behind the curve and struggling to understand the scope of the GDPR.  They
are only now starting to entertain comments from businesses impacted by
the regulation.  They are trying to understand but are understaffed.

Paul

On 10/22/17, 5:41 PM, "Rubens Kuhl" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of rubensk at nic.br> wrote:

>
>> On Oct 22, 2017, at 11:38 AM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>><gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I would argue that their views are uninformed on other points of view
>>or other changes that could be made that would satisfy their objectives
>>which is similar but has important differences. So I disagree we are at
>>the point we are violating EU law.
>
>Unfortunately we are already violating EU law. We are only not been
>sanctioned for it, because the law specify an adjusting period. Just read
>all the legal memos we already got.
>
>> EU DPAs may never change their mind.
>
>EU courts are a viable way to make government officials change their
>mind, if you think that's a matter of interpretation.
>
>> I¹ll just get US law changed so that US entities offering domains have
>>to list ownership information which means most if not all of the gTLDs I
>>care about if not ICANN also.
>
>You know that Verisign, Facebook and Amazon already have subsidiaries in
>EU, right ? And they can move their contracts there if being in the US
>becomes a competitive handicap ?
>
>> We aren¹t there yet because the DPAs are only starting to hear from us.
>>Until now these discussions were populated by ICANN and
>>registrars/registries who want whois to go away anyway.
>
>Frankly, registries and registrars couldn't care less about WHOIS. It's
>just a cost of doing business. The real battle here is between
>registrants in one side, and affected parties in the other. The balance
>always favoured affected parties from the beginning, and people got used
>to it; now that new laws are moving the needle towards registrants, there
>is resistance among those that got used to being favoured.
>
>
>> 
>> This solitary focus on EU law presupposes that people believe that of
>>the laws of the ~200 countries in the world, it is EU law that should be
>>the controlling force of internet governance. Is that what you are
>>saying?
>
>
>EU privacy law is just the first of many laws pointing in a similar
>direction, so it's not just a matter of following one jurisdiction, is
>about following a trend.
>
>
>Rubens
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg