This is exactly what my thoughts are on the topic. So Perhaps there could be a Methodology where a balanced approach, in line with conveniences, securities etc. be taken and provide a robust self reliance rather than waiting for the Authorities to act as this will only be after any misuse. Infant we could get views from the diff. governments on this too.
We should be able to collect views on it and collectively find a way to protect privacy, uphold the rule to privacy – globally and still be safe. BUT definitely You last two lines – Yes this is the New ICANN and No there is no choice. Train Wreck? Hope Not. :-)
I have a brief comment to follow up on Volker’s comments, the spirit
of
which I completely support. I recognize that my comments may be
unpopular. I
have kept a low profile in these discussions and I fear that despite
heroic
work and dedication on the part of all, there is a serious risk of
this turning
into a train wreck in practice.
Registries and registrars operate under the existing
laws of the countries in which they reside. Increasingly they cannot
conduct business in countries unless they have a business presence
in that country.
This gives countries power over registries and registrars, including
the power
to override elements of contracts with ICANN. How can this reality
be
reconciled with extending the most extensive privacy protection
level to
customers in ways that are workable for all providers and their
customers?
ICANN can identify the
absolute
minimum data set required by ICANN. ICANN does not have the country
by country
experience or exposure of registrars and registries. It could
participate in DNS
industry led efforts to deal with registries and registrar data
requirements,
but those efforts are probably best held outside ICANN and (horror
of horrors) will likely
involve multilateral efforts to reconcile inter-country differences
where ICANN
could/should engage both as a stakeholder and as an advocate for the
common
good in Internet governance.
In short, ICANN should (but probably won’t) focus on ICANN’s minimum
needs,
and then work elsewhere in partnership, as a stakeholder and offer
wise counsel,
within the larger multilateral and country by country struggle for
customer
privacy and security in ways workable for all providers and their
customers. Does
this sound like a new ICANN? Yes. Is there a choice? I think not.
Might I be wrong? Maybe. A train wreck? Hope not.
Sam L.
On 6/22/2016 7:06
AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Frankly, as a provider that is handing
over private details of my customer I do not care about
anything less than the maximum required protection in any
jurisdiction that may be applicable. So what if the states
have lower privacy protection requirements than Europe and
India has none? The only acceptable result in my eyes is an
accomodation of the most extensive privacy protection level
that may be required.
If we start looking at the countries
which do not care about the privacy of their citizens, then we
will get nowhere. Only be adhering to a maximum standard can
we ensure that the result is workable for all providers and
their customers.