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

[Greg Shatan]

The following statement troubles me greatly:

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 is a false dichotomy for several reasons.  First, the "affected
parties" are, in many cases, engaged in consumer protection, anti-abuse (of
many different types), anti-counterfeiting and other activities that
benefit registrants -- and more broadly, the security, stability of the
Internet and trust in the Internet.  Second, the "registrants" aren't
really in the battle.  We have people advocating for greatly expanded
privacy protections, but they are not representing the registrants.  They
may sincerely believe the speak for the registrants, or believe they know
what's best for the registrants -- or may just be privacy advocates.
Whether privacy benefits the vast majority of registrants -- and whether
the benefits outweigh the costs -- is very much an open question.  (We've
heard about some edge cases through anecdotes, but that is not indicative
of anything but bits of the edge.)

Setting "affected parties" against "registrants" is likely to keep us mired
in an unproductive "locked-horns" mode.  Maybe it benefits the privacy camp
to delay until things fall apart, but that is not governance, and I truly
hope that is not the agenda (I choose to believe we are just in the "messy
and slow" mode of multistakeholderism -- unfortunately time and mess are
not our friends here.)

If the common goal here is to create policy that enables as robust and
fully featured RDS as is possible without violating the law, then we could
have a common goal.

Figuring out how to deal with GDPR and what it really requires and looking
for ways to live with it are not elements of denial.  They are elements of
analysis.  Saying that GDPR is going to throw a big, wet blanket over
everything is not analysis -- it is an attempt to wield the GDPR as the
latest weapon in a long battle that has occupied ICANN (and many other
spaces) for a long time.  If we could turn our collective wisdom to problem
solving, we could make some real headway here.

Greg

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Rubens Kuhl <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.
>
> > I’ll 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 aren’t 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171024/7b848583/attachment.html>