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

Mon Aug 15 12:56:38 UTC 2011

I agree with Mikhail on this point and tend to agree with Bill`s original
comments despite my earlier comments with respect to some changes to the
definition.  Indeed, overall, I think we are on the right path and mixing
all up again may open a new can of worms.

Kim

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