[Rt4-whois] Help required - NOW EVEN EASIER!! [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Wed Aug 17 05:25:25 UTC 2011

Hello. I'm checking on this and will email the list tomorrow.

Regards
Denise

On Tuesday, August 16, 2011, Smith, Bill <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com> wrote:
> I think the answer is that the conflict provision has never been exercised
(I don't recall where I heard that).
>
> On Aug 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Nettlefold, Peter wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I just wanted to hijack this very useful discussion to ask a question
relating to applicable laws – have ICANN staff advised if the consensus
policy for dealing with conflicts with privacy laws has ever been used, and
if so how often and with what effect?
>
> Sorry if I should know this, but I’ve spent quite a bit of time trawling
emails etc and not found anything, and to my mind this is an important piece
of the evidence puzzle as we look at privacy in the WHOIS content.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2011 8:42 AM
> To: Emily Taylor
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Help required - NOW EVEN EASIER!!
>
> Hello,
>
> Applicable Laws
>
> Sorry for the late input but hopefully we can all discuss on Wednesday’s
call.     I am concerned that by adding “or any other relevant laws which
are binding on one or more of the parties" this will confuse the issues with
the definition.  Several comments pointed out that although individuals may
be protected by many different laws around the world that at least in the EU
and US businesses are explicitly not protected in the same manner and that
they have specific obligations to provide information if they are engaging
in commercial activity on the internet.
>
> The IPC made a very good point in their comments not all laws that involve
the protection of data are actually applicable to ICANN and the WHOIS
policy.
>
> The following is an excerpt from their comments:
>
> “In order to assess whether ICANN is fulfilling
> this commitment, the Review Team must focus on which laws are applicable
to ICANN in
> carrying out this policy. This can be a difficult question to answer.
While some national laws
> may apply to ICANN’s ability to enforce the requirements of providing open
Whois access, it
> seems inconceivable that “any and all local and national laws that
regulate and/or control the
> collection, use, access and disclosure of personally identifiable
information” are all applicable to
> ICANN in its enforcement of this policy.”
>
>
> Producers and Maintainers
>
> These definitions have been problematic and confusing to me from day one.
 I understand James’ point in defining the terms in this way (and I agreed
to it as part of the team) but it is obvious from the comments that we have
caused some confusion.
>
> Two possible solutions:
>
> 1.        Provide additional information with the definition that James
originally provided
>
> Existing Organizations:  Where do they fit?
>
> The subteam is unanimous on the following:
> ----------------------------------------
> Registrants = Producers
> ICANN = Maintainer (Data Controller)
> gTLD REGISTRY = Maintainer (Data Controller and Data Processor)
> gTLD REGISTRAR = Maintainer (Data Processor)
> WHOIS DATA ESCROW PROVIDER = Maintainer (Data Processor)
>
> The subteam disagrees on the following:
> ----------------------------------------
> WHOIS DATA AGGREGATOR = Data Processor (Susan), No Category (James)
> PRIVACY/PROXY SERVICE = Data Processor (Susan), Producer or No Category
(James)
>
> We may have to add to this list as there may be other services that fit
into these categories
>
> 2.     Revert to the usual terms such as Registrant, Registrar, Registry
etc. that are well known and understood.
>
> Looking forward to the discussion on Wednesday.
>
> Susan
>
>
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 2:26 AM
> To: Mikhail Yakushev
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto: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
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>   <~WRD122.jpg>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only
and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review,
re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.
>
>
> If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security
Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and
delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>

-- 
Denise Michel
michel.denise at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110816/133eca7c/attachment.html 