[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal basis vs. lawful

Mon Feb 12 18:47:20 UTC 2018

I think that sounds right. I mean, let's say that there's a registrant in
Japan using his or her domain name to sell shoes, and he or she uses (pick
your registrar) GoDaddy. Or GMO. Or Directi. (I'd even say an EU
registrar.) Simply put, the GDPR isn't intended to protect that registrant.
It was designed to protect natural persons in or who have citizenship the
EU.

John Horton
President and CEO, LegitScript

*Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>  |  Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript>  |  Twitter
<https://twitter.com/legitscript>  |  *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com/>*
  |  Newsletter <http://go.legitscript.com/Subscription-Management.html>

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Silver, Bradley <
Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com> wrote:

> I agree with both Greg and John regarding the need to ensure that the WG
> does not endorse principles that would extend positive legal prescriptions
> in one territory, to another which has different laws.  The proposed agreed
> statement, as highlighted below, contains an “if, then” qualifier.  So
> unless I am misreading it, we are not saying that the positive obligations
> of the GDPR should be applied worldwide.  Do we agree on that?
>
>
>
> *Possible agreement: If applicable data protection laws require a legal
> basis for processing, then any purpose must satisfy at least one legal
> basis for processing**. *
>
> We know that data protection laws of countries like the US do NOT
> positively oblige processors to have a “legal basis”.   So this statement
> should be inapplicable as far as processing occurring in the jurisdiction
> of such countries.  This makes the statement of limited use to us as a
> group, in my view.  What is more useful, and where I think there would be
> broader consensus, is that any basis for processing should be “lawful”,
> which would apply to both the US, and the EU.
>
>
>
> B
>
>
>
> *From:* John Horton [mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 12, 2018 1:22 PM
> *To:* Greg Aaron
> *Cc:* Silver, Bradley; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal basis vs. lawful
>
>
>
> I think Greg is right on. There's simply no justification to force a law
> that is only intended to apply to a) EU residents/citizens that are b)
> natural persons not using the domain name for commercial purposes, to the
> remaining...what? 97% - 99% of the world's registrant population? That
> would be a balanced way to implement all of this.
>
>
> John Horton
> President and CEO, LegitScript
>
>
>
> *Follow* *Legit**Script*: LinkedIn
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_legitscript-2Dcom&d=DwMFaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=DPLxSW4QevZ3fvbRR3M-f1vrZ7Nybgh-sxxGtLWenz8&s=4jOBWVejnTmlgyONWdzSu2Ek5tvYfcx3b4MzTM_r6Ws&e=>
> |  Facebook
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_LegitScript&d=DwMFaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=DPLxSW4QevZ3fvbRR3M-f1vrZ7Nybgh-sxxGtLWenz8&s=gZzZYUcbdo5WB87G9Kg2ujCuK0mEtjfzz4zjaqfaLtk&e=>
> |  Twitter
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_legitscript&d=DwMFaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=DPLxSW4QevZ3fvbRR3M-f1vrZ7Nybgh-sxxGtLWenz8&s=ueQIX47Y-zDVch-wXx84mvel1li7Ssq3p9uKbn2ZOuE&e=>
> |  *Blog
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.legitscript.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=DPLxSW4QevZ3fvbRR3M-f1vrZ7Nybgh-sxxGtLWenz8&s=7pxC_W3yu_Q0AwnnjKsWC_6pRjFzb_SuuIjcFidIYjk&e=>*
>   |  Newsletter
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.legitscript.com_Subscription-2DManagement.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=DPLxSW4QevZ3fvbRR3M-f1vrZ7Nybgh-sxxGtLWenz8&s=SDgGtfFZXpJdwIPJgZrvhMY8cNoVy9K4FaniCXsGb24&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com> wrote:
>
> I don’t know if we arrive at the same place.
>
>
>
> GDPR is based on one principle.  It states what is legal.  It's explicit
> about what you _are allowed to do_; granted there’s some flexibility and
> room for interpretation.   It’s like saying what’s inside a box.
>
>
>
> U.S. law is one based on different principles.  AFAIK U.S. consumer
> protection law does not enumerate specifically what is lawful.  Instead it
> tends to state what is illegal, what you are _not allowed to do_.   It’s
> like saying what’s outside the box.   The U.S. doesn’t have something like
> GDPR that spells out legal bases for collecting data, i.e. the enumerated
> allowable reasons.  Instead the trade and consumer protection laws
> basically say: entities have the right to form contracts between
> themselves, they should live up to the contract, don’t surprise people,
> don’t do certain dishonest things.
>
>
>
> Here's the problem: if one makes the GDPR principle the ICANN standard and
> you apply it to all registrations, then practices that are allowable in one
> place under the law (like the U.S.) would no longer be allowed there by
> ICANN policy.   ICANN would be choosing one legal approach or regime for
> everyone in the world.
>
>
>
> The alternative is to apply the GDRP only to those that it is designed to
> protect:  registrants in the EU.
>
>
>
> For example, there’s nothing in U.S. law that prohibits a U.S. registrar
> from having a contract that says publication of full contact data in WHOIS
> is  a condition of registering a domain name if you are a registrant in the
> U.S.
>
>
>
> See https://iapp.org/news/a/explaining-the-gdpr-to-an-american/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__iapp.org_news_a_explaining-2Dthe-2Dgdpr-2Dto-2Dan-2Damerican_&d=DwMFaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=DPLxSW4QevZ3fvbRR3M-f1vrZ7Nybgh-sxxGtLWenz8&s=qMWetjO0-0I3mCJ3uyEEW7eCgW9bhQfNbPJYH_r3fCk&e=>
> for more.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Silver, Bradley via
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> *Sent:* Friday, February 9, 2018 2:54 PM
> *To:* Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal basis vs. lawful
>
>
>
> It is true that the GDPR is prescriptive, although also rather open-ended
> (hence our current pickle).  But regardless of the term we use, don’t we
> arrive at the same place:  which is that if something that requires a legal
> basis is done without one, it will be unlawful?  Using Kathy’s example, if
> data is processed without complying with minimization or purpose
> principles, will such processing not run afoul of the law, and hence be
> unlawful?
>
>
>
> There are important distinctions between the meaning of “legal basis”
> which implies that a law requires something to be affirmatively present,
> versus “lawful”, which means that something is not prohibited by law.
> Ultimately though, isn’t “lawfulness”, the same end point, regardless?
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann
> *Sent:* Friday, February 09, 2018 11:27 AM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal basis vs. lawful
>
>
>
> I do not see how. Kathy's analysis seems sound. The flexibility within the
> GDPR still only allows processing in very specific cicumstances, all of
> which are listed in the GDPR.
>
>
>
> Am 09.02.2018 um 16:45 schrieb Victoria Sheckler:
>
> Kathy’s analysis breaks down on a practical level when one looks at the
> GDPR and what it says about when data can be processed.  The GDPR allows
> for flexibility for what can be processed and when, and kathy’s analysis
> overlooks that point.
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:07 PM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal basis vs. lawful
>
>
>
> Tx for the invitation to join, Chuck, and following up on the discussion
> of Sam and Tapani, let me add that criteria for processing must be clearer
> than something broadly within ICANN's mission statement and something
> permissible somewhere. The requirements under law are express and concrete.
>
> Specifically, GDPR Article 5(1)(b and c) states:
>
>
> *Personal data shall be: 2.    "collected for specified, explicit and
> legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is
> incompatible with those purposes"* (the "purpose limitation") AND
> * 3.    "adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation
> to the purposes for which they are processed"* (the "data minimisation"
> requirement).  [underline added]
>
> Thus, our first criteria of "consistent with ICANN's mission," is only the
> first step and we need to go further than even the 3 criteria we are
> discussing..
>
> Second, lawful and legal enter us into a debate over words and I have to
> agree with Sam and Tapani's analysis and let me add some of my own.
>
> "Legal" is the term we use for actions expressly allowed under law. How we
> process personal data under the GDRP falls into this category -- of
> processing expressly allowed under law. Whereas the term lawful is used for
> a much broader category of actions which are generally permissible and
> allowable.
>
> The term "legal" is much more consistent with our criteria statement
> because the processing of personal data by ICANN must clearly have a *valid
> legal basis* as expressly defined by data protection laws.
>
> Best regards,
> Kathy
>
> On 2/7/2018 10:53 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> Thanks Tapani,
>
> I will extract from your longer message.
> I deliberately kept my brief and less technical.
> I think we are in agreement here and I support your position.
>
> On 2/7/2018 1:07 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
> The key distinction, as I understand it, is that "lawful" would be
>  defined by the negative, everything that some law does not prohibit,
>
> where as "legal basis" is defined by the positive, only things whose
> justification can be explicitly derived from law.
>
>   <......>
>
> So I would prefer "legal basis" specifically in this sense: that any
> processing
>  would have to be explicitly based on one of the criteria, or bases, as
> listed
> in GDPR Article 6, or similar explicit justification in other data
> protection legislation.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DwMDaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=fOG1O9n2_DhDKrVj0wrojDKlYIsDeLHzwtDlEi-f9Ng&s=GditP_BvWvjE7xFIYot7e5akySiL4RPKaCgA_X_fyTE&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DwMDaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=fOG1O9n2_DhDKrVj0wrojDKlYIsDeLHzwtDlEi-f9Ng&s=GditP_BvWvjE7xFIYot7e5akySiL4RPKaCgA_X_fyTE&e=>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> * Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks
> you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any
> questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please
> contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 <(212)%20484-6000> or via email
> at **ITServices at timewarner.com* <ITServices at timewarner.com>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for
> the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or
> confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
> or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
> recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this
> information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information
> herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to
> whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received
> this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and
> delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage
> system. 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=DPLxSW4QevZ3fvbRR3M-f1vrZ7Nybgh-sxxGtLWenz8&s=a3wK_oYnrMMM6zmkjHi9ig0--bYonIPfppoujjsTmgM&e=>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> * Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks
> you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any
> questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please
> contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 <(212)%20484-6000> or via email
> at ITServices at timewarner.com <ITServices at timewarner.com> *
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180212/dfef4317/attachment-0001.html>