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

[Chuck]

Ayden,

 

Any questions that the small group would collect or develop would be run by the WG before submitting them.  And as always, the WG would have to carefully weigh any responses we receive.  In my personal opinion, it is always better to have more information as long as we carefully evaluate it on a case by case basis and compare to other sources.

 

Chuck

 

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 3:08 PM
To: Michael Palage <michael at palage.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 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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180215/6c214881/attachment-0001.html>