+1 It’s not as simple as some people like to make out. Also assuming that there is a direct registrant -> registrar relationship is silly and completely ignores a very large proportion of registrations that are handled by resellers of different kinds. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://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: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Tuesday 30 October 2018 at 14:32 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] EPDP: Geographic distinction With regard to the geographic location I think it is more complex, an example of this complexity, if the registry is outside of the EU and is processing data that belongs to persons outside of the EU but has a processor within the EU then GDPR still applies. (A processor might be a reseller) Hadia From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:50 PM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] EPDP: Geographic distinction The issue is the 2nd one and the perceived risk of making a wrong decision. But the counter argument is that for every registration, the registrant indicates a country. And some contracted parties (such as GoDaddy with 35% of all .com registrations) already make that distinction. Alan At 30/10/2018 07:06 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Alan, I do understand the contracted parties who push back for at least 2 reasons: * the mobility of registrants * the complexity of managing 2 kind of treatment I though it was said in the beginning that the contracted parties should remain free to apply universally or only for the European subjects. This is in my opinion the best choice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 30 oct. 2018 à 02:32, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > a écrit : 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<RySG revisions Small Team #2 Geographic - updated.pdf>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg