That would be problematic, as you should know, since there is no clear cut line of what would constitute over-enforcement or under-enforcement. Well, the latter will resolve itself due to the incoming DPA actions. I also never heard of fees to be paid into a fund by those simply trying to remain compliant with their applicable laws. Contracted parties have been stating for years, if not over a decade that publication whois details in the current form and shape is problematic from a data protection perspective. We have repeatedly tried to drive home the point that the current system is not sustainable. We were ignored or ridiculed, or asked to get sued to prove our point. Now that we are forced to take action, everybody is protesting as if this were something new. It is not. Now we have to do a short-term fix, that will hurt more than it would have needed to if everyone had cooperated in good faith to reform whois years ago. The status quo will change. Our job is now to cooperate in good faith to build a new universal system that still fits most needs but also takes data protection as its core principle. Volker out! Am 15.02.2018 um 05:14 schrieb Greg Shatan:
In a similar vein, ICANN could establish an “Over-enforce the GDPR Fund,” in which everyone who thinks the GDPR’s data blackout should be extended to the data of non-EU and legal persons would pay in, and it would be used to defray the expenses incurred by those who should have access to information and instead must expend additional time, money and effort, and often incur additional harm, due GDPR over-enforcement.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:03 AM Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Maybe you are hitting on something here.
ICANN could just establish a "Leave-Whois-as-it-is" legal defense fund. Everyone who argues that whois should remain as it is has to pay into that fund and everyone who is fined by data protection violations can take the fines and their legal costs out of that fund. Of course, that would necessitate huge investments to set up the fund from mainly volunteer organizations that do not actually have the means to support it.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.02.2018 um 02:21 schrieb Rubens Kuhl:
On 13 Feb 2018, at 20:32, John Horton <john.horton@legitscript.com <mailto:john.horton@legitscript.com>> wrote:
Thanks, Rubens -- I don't agree with that interpretation. (I think you mean the Q&A memo Section 2, right?) See memo here <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-memorandum-part2-18dec17-en...>. Let me know if you meant the first or a different one.
It's exactly that memo. Since you don't agree, does that mean that your organisation is willing to pay every GDPR fine contracted parties get from following your interpretation ? Because if you are unwilling to do that, then your belief in that interpretation is not rock solid.
What I can tell you is that this risk has been flagged by that paper, by the eco model and by internal analysis of some registries, all independently of each other; which means you will likely see a good number of contracted parties following exactly the path I outlined in order to mitigate this risk.
If you see things differently, get Europeans DPAs to put that in writing, and we are all good to go.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg