[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal Inquiry to ICANN

[Chen, Tim]

actually I think Michael's proposal is very logical and constructive.

as I tried to point out in prior posts, the question is not that GDPR is
extraterritorial, it is exactly how the language around the
extraterritorial nature should be interpreted.  Some areas are clear, such
as Michele's repeated example of what he has to do as an Irish registrar,
but other areas are much less clear.   As I think these types of laws and
regulations often are.

since we're all going to continue to interpret the language in the way that
best suits our own interests, which is getting unhelpful, why not try to
get further clarity by specifically written questions to a law firm that is
now very up to speed on this issue?

put another way:  certain EU constituents on this list have made it clear
that they need legal clarity on their exposure, given the risks.  Why deny
non-EU constituents the same rights and abilities, since GDPR clearly
applies to them as well?

Tim

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

> I do not support this as a path forward.
>
> We have seen repeatedly that the legal advice we have been issued has been
> ignored by those who are unhappy with the message contained within it.
>
> And I disagree with the assertion that there is a "clear lack of
> consensus" on the question of the extraterritorial nature of the GDPR.
>
> To continue dwelling on this question will ensure that we never make any
> progress as a working group.
>
> — Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 15 February 2018 12:01 AM, Michael Palage <michael at palage.com> wrote:
>
> Chuck,
>
>
>
> As one of the original authors to the this extraterritorial thread, I
> welcome all the legal interpretation by both lawyers and non-lawyers in
> connection the scope to Article 3 of the GDPR. I  think it is fair to say
> there is a clear lack of consensus.  Therefore I would like to propose the
> following.  Allow the group to comprise a list of legal questions regarding
> this issue and forward it to ICANN.org and ask of them the following:
>
>
>
>    1. Provide the list of questions to Hamilton for a response
>    2. Have ICANN legal provide a response to these same questions
>
>
>
> The reason for Number 2 is that John Jeffrey made very clear in the last
> webinar that he does NOT agree with all of the Hamilton analysis.  I think
> us ICANN volunteers toiling away in the PDP coal mine are entitled/deserve
> an answer to these questions to allow us to move forward with more
> productive work It does the group no good for a bunch of well-intentioned
> individuals lacking the requisite legal training to debate these issues.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180214/ff431b6e/attachment.html>