Article 29 WP Letter to ICANN
This letter from the Article 29 Working Party to ICANN is well worth a read: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr1... ICANN has also published a post here, expressing disappointment that "the letter does not mention our request for a moratorium on enforcement of the law until we implement a model." https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
Some personal comments: - WHOIS is already fragmented today. There are clusters of similar patterns like new gTLDs, RIRs etc., but for most of the names and numbers objects, there are specifics of what is presented and in what conditions. Considering the limited number of RSPs, even different interpretations wouldn't generate that many differences overall. And even the deployment of RDAP doesn't solve that, it just standardises the line protocol used to request and get the information. - It is unreasonable to expect DPAs to issue a moratorium, since GDPR also allows citizens to challenge DPAs actions or inactions. It's asking others to put a rope around their neck, and notably at a matter where the same DPAs challenged ICANN decisions for decades. - The legal action possibility is curious, since its basic ask would be "Please allow me to break the law". Not something prone to injunctions or similar fast-paced decisions, although a merit decision in favor of ICANN could happen. It could serve, though, as emotional comfort to the community. Perhaps EU lawmakers could be a better avenue to get an exemption equating WHOIS to land registries and similar bodies. - Their letter looks like "sudden death" for the accreditation model that was being built. But it could be reborn in a different fashion. Rubens
On 12 Apr 2018, at 19:23, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
This letter from the Article 29 Working Party to ICANN is well worth a read:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr1... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr1...>
ICANN has also published a post here, expressing disappointment that "the letter does not mention our request for a moratorium on enforcement of the law until we implement a model."
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en>
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Completely agree. There is no provision within the GDPR that permits a Data Protection Authority to defer from enforcing the law, so for ICANN to ask for a moratorium on enforcement is inappropriate. The GDPR has been coming for years, it is not new or unexpected, ICANN simply didn't do its homework. And I found it offensive and inappropriate that ICANN would resort to calling upon "fake news" in their biased press release, using this emotive language to convey a false sense of urgency. I think the Article 29 Working Party will see right through it as well. Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 13 April 2018 2:38 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Some personal comments: - WHOIS is already fragmented today. There are clusters of similar patterns like new gTLDs, RIRs etc., but for most of the names and numbers objects, there are specifics of what is presented and in what conditions. Considering the limited number of RSPs, even different interpretations wouldn't generate that many differences overall. And even the deployment of RDAP doesn't solve that, it just standardises the line protocol used to request and get the information. - It is unreasonable to expect DPAs to issue a moratorium, since GDPR also allows citizens to challenge DPAs actions or inactions. It's asking others to put a rope around their neck, and notably at a matter where the same DPAs challenged ICANN decisions for decades. - The legal action possibility is curious, since its basic ask would be "Please allow me to break the law". Not something prone to injunctions or similar fast-paced decisions, although a merit decision in favor of ICANN could happen. It could serve, though, as emotional comfort to the community. Perhaps EU lawmakers could be a better avenue to get an exemption equating WHOIS to land registries and similar bodies. - Their letter looks like "sudden death" for the accreditation model that was being built. But it could be reborn in a different fashion.
Rubens
On 12 Apr 2018, at 19:23, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
This letter from the Article 29 Working Party to ICANN is well worth a read:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr1...
ICANN has also published a post here, expressing disappointment that "the letter does not mention our request for a moratorium on enforcement of the law until we implement a model."
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
They can't do this Ayden! Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 13, 2018, at 12:23 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
This letter from the Article 29 Working Party to ICANN is well worth a read:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr1...
ICANN has also published a post here, expressing disappointment that "the letter does not mention our request for a moratorium on enforcement of the law until we implement a model."
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
I posted about it on our company blog earlier today: https://blacknight.blog/game-over-for-public-whois-article-29-gives-icann-th... -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday 12 April 2018 at 23:24 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Article 29 WP Letter to ICANN This letter from the Article 29 Working Party to ICANN is well worth a read: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr1... ICANN has also published a post here, expressing disappointment that "the letter does not mention our request for a moratorium on enforcement of the law until we implement a model." https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
Thanks Michele, great blog post. I was at an event in Berlin last night organised by the Mozilla Foundation, where they had brought together a number of senior industry representatives to talk about their GDPR preparations. (All were confident that they now complied with the GDPR, because they begun their preparations some four years ago.) One of the questions put to the panel was whether they feared the Data Protection Authorities (DPA) taking action against them, and a comment from a director at BlackBerry stuck with me. He responded in the negative, saying it was unlikely the DPAs would come after them, as they have made a good faith effort to comply with the GDPR. However, his fear was that an "ambulance chaser" type firm would emerge that would specialise in filing routine and repetitive civil suits against firms that have achieved 99.999% compliance with the GDPR and have made "very small errors" that the DPAs would not have the resources to investigate. I wonder if any such law firms will make their way into the ICANN ecosystem? Food for thought... Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 13 April 2018 2:14 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
I posted about it on our company blog earlier today:
https://blacknight.blog/game-over-for-public-whois-article-29-gives-icann-th...
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday 12 April 2018 at 23:24 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Article 29 WP Letter to ICANN
This letter from the Article 29 Working Party to ICANN is well worth a read:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr1...
ICANN has also published a post here, expressing disappointment that "the letter does not mention our request for a moratorium on enforcement of the law until we implement a model."
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
participants (4)
-
Ayden Férdeline -
Erika Mann -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Rubens Kuhl