To add to Volker's response, the process used to request this waiver under the 2013 RAA can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/updates/retention. Further information about this specific request can also be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27jan14-en.htm. Best regards, Marika On 17/03/14 12:03, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> wrote:
Hi Amr,
nothin has changed. The reason OVH got their waiver because in their application they only asked for what ICANN sees as a "compromise solution" that does not really meet the legal requirements of most European registrars.
Volker
Am 17.03.2014 11:58, schrieb Amr Elsadr:
Hi,
I had meant to send an email about this earlier, but then the U.S. gov decided to steal the spotlight and attention (including mine) from most other issues. I was curious about the process and circumstances regarding this announcement:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12mar14-en.htm
Last year, the EU's Article 29 Data Protection Working Party sent a letter to ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/kohnstamm-to-crocker-chehade -06jun13-en), requesting waivers to EU-based registrars, but ICANN did not seem to respond in agreement in their reply (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/jeffrey-to-kohnstamm-20sep13 -en).
So what changed? Was the ICANN Procedure For Handling Conflicts with Privacy Law used? Was it something else? I believe this is something worth taking notice of, especially with the ongoing WHOIS activities?
I can¹t seem to find any details? Can someone point me in the right direction?
Thanks.
Amr