[Rt4-whois] Help required - NOW EVEN EASIER!!

Mon Aug 15 09:42:17 UTC 2011

Dear Emily,

I do agree that all other relevant laws should not be excluded.

However, even in the current definitions such legal norms are NOT excluded (if they are applicable to the regulation/control of the personal data). As far as I remember, there was presented no proof, that any act of the domestic legislation has a direct reference to the WHOIS formats/technology/etc. In most cases such legislation (be it, e.g., criminal investigation procedures and/or consumer protection) are interrelated with the local personal data laws and thus can be treated as such (= no further clarification is needed for our definition).

For example, in Russia there are (implicit) obligations of any internet provider to share information on their customers in case of criminal investigation. The Federal Law on Personal Data (more or less based on E.U.Convention) is much more specific on what personal data are and how they should be protected;  it also contains specific exclusions from the protection regime for the cases like criminal investigation - and thus can be treated as a "primary applicable" law for the WHOIS-related matters. Making Criminal Process Code a "secondary applicable" law. This makes the overall definition as simple and as understandable as possible. Anyhow, any additions - as you propose them for better understanding - are also possible.

Regards,
Michael

From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 1:26 PM
To: Mikhail Yakushev
Cc: LEMON, Sharon; rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Help required - NOW EVEN EASIER!!

Hi all

Thanks for your feedback.   I agree with Michael and Bill, except that I think we need to tweak the definition further.  As I recall, there were some comments (the GAC? others?) to the effect that, while data protection/privacy laws are the obvious example of relevant applicable laws, our definition should not exclude other relevant applicable laws - and therefore we should add some words like "or any other relevant laws which are binding on one or more of the parties".  The commentators may have suggested better wording, but I think we do need to consider this sort of sweep up.

Kind regards

Emily
On 15 August 2011 10:18, Mikhail Yakushev <m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru<mailto:m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru>> wrote:
Dear Sharon,
Thank you very much for your valuable work.
I mostly share Bill's views (see his separate e-mail) on most comments and I think there is no proven necessity to make any substantial changes in any of the definitions.
As for the "Applicable Laws" definition:

(a)    The  feedback was mostly positive,

(b)    I am ready to prepare a short response for each comment - based on Bill's methodology :),

(c)    I think it is possible to agree with Lexinta proposal and to remove the reference to the UN Guidelines on Personal Data - indeed, it's legal force is much weaker, that the Human Rights Declaration. However, Lexinta's reference to the 'applicable' laws (making an unfortunate cross-reference definition) should also be omitted.
Regards,
Michael

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of LEMON, Sharon
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 1:04 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Help required - NOW EVEN EASIER!!

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
 Hello Everyone,

Last week I sent out my part of the report - definitions for comment and assistance.  Response was
limited ;-), but I still need your help.

So - to make it even easier I have subdivided the work into three and you only need to look at the one which relates to the subgroup you were in.  I would like you to look at the definition, the feedback received and let me know if you think we should change it in light of that feedback. The first document is the key for those who fedback, the second the defination and comments and the third the longer version, should you be interested.  I have now incorporated the LE feedback from both Peter and I and summarised the comments, rather than just listed them.

This will only take minutes PROMISE - and  I would really like to feedback at our next conference call and I am off next week - so you have until Monday 15th!.

So - Producers and Maintainers - James, Susan and Wilfried
       Applicable Laws -Kim, Omar, Michael, Lynn
       Law Enforcement - Kim, Lutz, Peter.

Here's hoping,

Sharon

Sharon LEMON OBE
Deputy Director
Cyber and Forensics
Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)
07768 290902
0207 855 2800

This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> or by telephoning 0870 268 8677.

All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

--

   [Description: Image removed by sender.]

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>

www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110815/d5334e5a/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: ~WRD000.jpg
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110815/d5334e5a/WRD000.jpg 