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

[Carlton Samuels]

Agreed!

We should avoid having a gTLD policy posture that a priori, make scofflaws
of persons.  It is one reason why I've always expressed deep concern the
ICANN Procedures for handling WHOIS conflicts with [national] privacy laws
as wrong-headed.  First you make me a scofflaw then grudgingly confer a
waiver. And only after help of expensive counsel.

-Carlton


==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:57 PM, <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:

> Does anyone disagree with this: “the common goal here is to create policy
> that enables as robust and fully featured RDS as is possible without
> violating the law”?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:13 PM
> *To:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> *Cc:* GNSO RDS PDP <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] another document that might be of
> interest
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171027/395fa24f/attachment.html>