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

Thu Feb 15 14:20:10 UTC 2018

I don’t think that Michael is suggesting that we stop our current work while we develop and ask questions of experts.  In some cases, we may need to make some assumptions until we get answers and then make adjustments later if our assumptions prove to be incorrect. 

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 6:09 AM
To: Dotzero <dotzero at gmail.com>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal Inquiry to ICANN

I do not totally disagree with you there. Having read the replies to this thread, I found the clarifications from Tim and Stephanie helpful and I can see some merit to the suggestion that Michael Palage put forward. But I remain concerned that developing these questions, and seeking this legal advice, would be a very time consuming process that would see us make no progress as a Working Group anytime soon.

Best wishes,

Ayden  

-------- Original Message --------

On 15 February 2018 2:58 PM, Dotzero <dotzero at gmail.com <mailto:dotzero at gmail.com> > wrote:

To simply assert that the extraterritorial nature of GDPR is the end all and be all falls into the realm of the absurd. If another jurisdiction passes legislation mandating publication of identifying (personal) information in whois, what then? What happens if you are "Trumped" by U.S. legislation? Do you really want to see a trade war or worse? We are dealing with a complex and difficult situation that is the equivalent of wrestling a jello snake in a vat of oil. We are best served by seeking outcomes that accommodate GDPR as best as possible and recognize that other jurisdictions do not necessarily follow the same principles as GDPR. I say this even though I agree with many of the principles embodied in GDPR.

Michael Hammer

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20180215/eda5a4ab/attachment.html>