+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?
>>>
>
>
>