Proposed addition to Wednesday Agenda
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?
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?
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?
+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?
Likewise From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Magaly Pazello Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:32 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: Avri Doria; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Proposed addition to Wednesday Agenda +1 Magaly On Sunday, March 23, 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto: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<mailto: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?
Same here! Thomas Am 24.03.2014 um 05:25 schrieb Reed, Daniel A <dan-reed@uiowa.edu>:
Likewise
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Magaly Pazello Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:32 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: Avri Doria; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Proposed addition to Wednesday Agenda
+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?
Thanks for the words of support. I did give Cyrus a heads up that this topic (RAA Data Retention Waivers) would be discussed by Council and participants in our meeting on Wednesday. Thank you-- J. Sent from my iPad On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:14, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: Same here! Thomas Am 24.03.2014 um 05:25 schrieb Reed, Daniel A <dan-reed@uiowa.edu<mailto:dan-reed@uiowa.edu>>: Likewise From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Magaly Pazello Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:32 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: Avri Doria; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Proposed addition to Wednesday Agenda +1 Magaly On Sunday, March 23, 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto: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<mailto: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?
i’m in. m On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Same here!
Thomas
Am 24.03.2014 um 05:25 schrieb Reed, Daniel A <dan-reed@uiowa.edu>:
Likewise
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Magaly Pazello Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:32 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: Avri Doria; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Proposed addition to Wednesday Agenda
+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?
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
To quote Gary Gilmore, "Let's do it!" Berard Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:49 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
i’m in.
m
On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Same here!
Thomas
Am 24.03.2014 um 05:25 schrieb Reed, Daniel A <dan-reed@uiowa.edu>:
Likewise
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Magaly Pazello Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:32 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: Avri Doria; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Proposed addition to Wednesday Agenda
+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?
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
That reference will stick with me all day ... On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:02 AM, "John Berard" <johnberard@aol.com<mailto:johnberard@aol.com>> wrote: To quote Gary Gilmore, "Let's do it!" Berard Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:49 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: i’m in. m On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: Same here! Thomas Am 24.03.2014 um 05:25 schrieb Reed, Daniel A <dan-reed@uiowa.edu<mailto:dan-reed@uiowa.edu>>: Likewise From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Magaly Pazello Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:32 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: Avri Doria; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Proposed addition to Wednesday Agenda +1 Magaly On Sunday, March 23, 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto: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<mailto: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?
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
participants (8)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Avri Doria -
James M. Bladel -
John Berard -
Magaly Pazello -
Mike O'Connor -
Reed, Daniel A -
Thomas Rickert