Restrict.   But the [processing] principle at issue is really about granularity of data; granularity enables pointed decision-making.

Multiple DP/P regimes are emerging, all of them sharing principles but often because of application makes for small to significant differences. In fact even in EU member states there are differences. 

Encourage granularity. 

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround

=============================


On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:33 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
GDPR is applicable to residents of the EU by companies resident there
and worldwide.

One of the issues is whether contracted parties should be allowed or
required to distinguish between those who are resident there and elsewhere.

There is agreement that such distinction should be allowed, but EPDP
is divided on whether it should be required. The GAC/BC/IPC want to
see the distinction made, and at least one very large contracted
party does already make the distinction. Other contracted parties are
pushing back VERY strongly saying that there is virtually no way that
the can or are willing to make the distinction.

The current (confusing) state of the working document is attached.

Which side should ALAC come down on?

- Restrict application to those to whom GDPR applies?
- Apply universally ignoring residence?

As usual, quick replies requested.

Alan_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg