I do not support this as a path forward.

We have seen repeatedly that the legal advice we have been issued has been ignored by those who are unhappy with the message contained within it.

And I disagree with the assertion that there is a "clear lack of consensus" on the question of the extraterritorial nature of the GDPR.

To continue dwelling on this question will ensure that we never make any progress as a working group.

— Ayden

-------- Original Message --------

On 15 February 2018 12:01 AM, Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> wrote:

Chuck,

As one of the original authors to the this extraterritorial thread, I welcome all the legal interpretation by both lawyers and non-lawyers in connection the scope to Article 3 of the GDPR. I think it is fair to say there is a clear lack of consensus. Therefore I would like to propose the following. Allow the group to comprise a list of legal questions regarding this issue and forward it to ICANN.org and ask of them the following:

Provide the list of questions to Hamilton for a response
Have ICANN legal provide a response to these same questions

The reason for Number 2 is that John Jeffrey made very clear in the last webinar that he does NOT agree with all of the Hamilton analysis. I think us ICANN volunteers toiling away in the PDP coal mine are entitled/deserve an answer to these questions to allow us to move forward with more productive work It does the group no good for a bunch of well-intentioned individuals lacking the requisite legal training to debate these issues.

Best regards,

Michael