I hope this doesn’t create too much confusion, but here is a version of the questions with some input updated today.

Chuck

Privacy Sub-Team – Draft 25 April 2016

Each team to consider their total output to address the following questions[1]:

(i) Did this input inventory produce any insights to inform the WG’s work plan?

Draft response:

(ii) Which inputs are likely to be the most relevant during WG deliberations and why[2]?

Draft response (based on input received during 20/4 meeting):

· SAC 054, because [to be completed]

· EWG Recommendations, because [to be completed]

· The EU Data Protection Directive 1995 (the best known of all data protection laws; the legal obligations of all countries in the EU)

· The Council of Europe's Treaty 108 on Data Protection (created in 1981, and signed about 47 countries within and outside the EU, this is a key founding document of comprehensive data protection laws)

· Professor Greenleaf's two articles (part of the same book) set out his studies showing that the adoption of data protection laws is growing rapidly -- and in 2015 the number of countries with comprehensive data protection laws surpassed those without data protections laws. More than a majority of the countries of the world have now adopted comprehensive data protection laws and legal frameworks.

· [Schrems v.Data Protection Commissioner (2015)/EU-US Privacy Shield (2016) - very recent cases and agreements which clearly show that rigorous enforcement of EU data protection laws is on the rise by high courts and their decisions are forcing new agreements to be negotiated which raise the legal requirements for transferring data from the EU countries to other parts of the world. The new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is an important example of these higher legal requirements. The Article 29 Working Party Opinion on the Privacy Shield -- only about two weeks old -- is important for its discussion of these newest of major legal data protection frameworks. ]

· Opinion 2/2003 on the Application of the Data Protection Principles to the Whois directories is the Article 29 Working Party's opinion expressly guiding ICANN on how to apply data protection laws and frameworks to the Whois issues. What could be more "on point" for our full Working Group's work?

· McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, a decision in 1995 by the US Supreme Court, affirming the importance of anonymous speech in creating an avenue for important, but unpopular and minority ideas to enter into a country's robust political, cultural and artistic discussions. In this decision, the US Supreme Court found that anonymity speech is a protected under the US First Amendment and a person cannot be forced to put her/his name and address on all of statements.

· Thick Whois PDP report, and the legal review presented to the Implementation Review Team on Thick Whois (this is document #6 in the list from the consolidated PDF) is highly relevant, since it represents the most recent thinking from ICANN concerning the impact of privacy/data protection laws on one aspect of the current RDS (a/k/a Whois).

(iii) Which inputs, if any, generated the most discussion within the small team?

Draft response:

(iv) Which inputs may be obsolete or super-ceded by subsequent work?

Draft response:

(v) What input gaps, if any, may need to be addressed later?

Draft response:

(vi) Other key takeaways from this input inventory the team wishes to share with the WG

Draft response:

From: Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:09 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org
Subject: Preparation for today's Privacy Team meeting
Importance: High

Hello Privacy Sub Team,

I apologize for the late notice on this. I had hoped that David would have sent this earlier but for some unknown reason, probably beyond his control, he was unable to attend the Leadership Call yesterday and hasn’t responded to email messages since then.

On today’s call you as a team will have 45 minutes to discuss the questions listed below. The team will be asked to formulate responses to each of the questions in the coming week and today’s meeting will be used to get that process started. Please think about all the summaries of the documents that have been reviewed for “privacy” and be prepared to share your initial responses to the questions on today’s call. Hopefully that will motivate list discussion in the coming week so that the team can present more complete responses in the WG call on May 3^rd.

Note that the Privacy Team is scheduled for the following time slot today: 16.15 – 17.00 UTC. If David is able to participate, I will let him lead the discussion if he is able to do so. If not, I will do it.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Chuck

Privacy Sub-Team – Draft 25 April 2016

Each team to consider their total output to address the following questions[1]:

(i) Did this input inventory produce any insights to inform the WG’s work plan?

Draft response:

(ii) Which inputs are likely to be the most relevant during WG deliberations and why[2]?

Draft response (based on input received during 20/4 meeting):

SAC 054, because [to be completed]

· EWG Recommendations, because [to be completed]

(iii) Which inputs, if any, generated the most discussion within the small team?

Draft response:

(iv) Which inputs may be obsolete or super-ceded by subsequent work?

Draft response:

(v) What input gaps, if any, may need to be addressed later?

Draft response:

(vi) Other key takeaways from this input inventory the team wishes to share with the WG

Draft response:

[2] Note, this does not mean that other inputs are not considered – this is just intended to facilitate the WG’s prioritization of documents to consider first in relation to the finalization of the work plan and subsequent deliberations.