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 can©öt seem to find any details? Can someone point me in the right
direction?

Thanks.

Amr