+1 Magaly On Sunday, March 23, 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
So do I. I believe this discussion is overdue. Thanks for suggesting it,
James.
Amr
On Mar 23, 2014, at 8:30 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ACM.ORG> wrote:
Hi,
I support including the discussion item in the agenda.
avri
On 23-Mar-14 20:26, James M. Bladel wrote:
Councilors:
As discussed, here is my proposal agenda add (vetted by Maria & Thomas) for a discussion during Wednesday's open session. Would be happy to hear comments/edits.
Thanks--
J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Discussion item: Data retention waiver and the apparent conflict of national data protection laws with the 2013 RAA *
Many European registrars have expressed frustration with ICANN's handling of their waiver requests from the Data Retention requirements under the 2013 RAA, particularly considering recent statements by various data protection authorities that these requirements violate national privacy laws. Other ICANN stakeholders have expressed concern about the treatment of legal data protection requirements when the ICANN contract appears to conflict with certain laws. Still other stakeholders are concerned that the ability of law enforcement and private enforcement actions to access data be kept in place. The RAA includes language that allows ICANN to temporarily suspend enforcement of the data retention provisions. As this situation has now been ongoing for over six months, pending a resolution of the issue, should the GNSO Council and larger ICANN Community direct ICANN Staff to suspend enforcement for any registrar requesting a waiver?