Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] EPDP: Geographic distinction
At the moment we are quite divided on this issue. If you cannot be on the CPWG call in 2 1/2 hours, please comment here. We need to report back to the EPDP on Thursday. Alan At 29/10/2018 09:32 PM, Alan Greenberg 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
I'm at EDUCAUSE so cannot join right now. So, we have evidence that even in EU jurisdictions there are different DP regimes implemented in government and yes, by ccTLDs. We are not hearing a claim of inconsistency with law and regulation. We know that in the UK - reprising Brexit - the law allows and the ccTLD exercises a definitional attribute distinguishing between legal and natural persons. In these instances there is a causal connection in these distinctions that have a bearing on the collection and publication views of a WHOIS record. I'm struggling to understand why the principle of distinguishing registrants as discretely as possible merits a fight? Especially if what is requested in collection is merely linkable data?? Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:32 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At the moment we are quite divided on this issue. If you cannot be on the CPWG call in 2 1/2 hours, please comment here. We need to report back to the EPDP on Thursday.
Alan
At 29/10/2018 09:32 PM, Alan Greenberg 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Alan and all, It is not that I agree or disagree but with regard to the geographic location of the registrant I see that the question was posed incorrectly from the beginning. The location of the registrant alone does not determine whether GDPR applies or not, the location of the controller or the processor is what matters in this regard. I see this as an unnecessary debate, registrants trying to avoid those who combat cyber crime will register with European based registrars/re-sellers. BestHadia On Wednesday, October 31, 2018, 7:33:01 PM GMT+2, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: At the moment we are quite divided on this issue. If you cannot be on the CPWG call in 2 1/2 hours, please comment here. We need to report back to the EPDP on Thursday. Alan At 29/10/2018 09:32 PM, Alan Greenberg 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Well, that’s until the EU recognizes the problem and passes some cybercrime directive at which point they’ll have to move. From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Hadia El Miniawi via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Reply-To: Hadia El Miniawi <hadiaminiawi@yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:31 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] EPDP: Geographic distinction Hi Alan and all, It is not that I agree or disagree but with regard to the geographic location of the registrant I see that the question was posed incorrectly from the beginning. The location of the registrant alone does not determine whether GDPR applies or not, the location of the controller or the processor is what matters in this regard. I see this as an unnecessary debate, registrants trying to avoid those who combat cyber crime will register with European based registrars/re-sellers. Best Hadia On Wednesday, October 31, 2018, 7:33:01 PM GMT+2, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: At the moment we are quite divided on this issue. If you cannot be on the CPWG call in 2 1/2 hours, please comment here. We need to report back to the EPDP on Thursday. Alan At 29/10/2018 09:32 PM, Alan Greenberg 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<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Hadia El Miniawi -
Jonathan Zuck