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

On 13 Feb 2018, at 20:32, John Horton <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. 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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg