[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal Inquiry to ICANN
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Feb 15 17:22:26 UTC 2018
With great respect, the US has systematically been attempting to get
WHOIS data output into recent trade agreements, including for ccTLDs,
for a number of years. so we are already there....
Stephanie Perrin
On 2018-02-15 08:58, Dotzero 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
> <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/20180215/1b70efcd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list