I think this is an excellent suggestion.  May I add to this a suggestion that we include the DPAs who so kindly came to Copenhagen last year?  They indicated a willingness to engage further, and I see no evidence that we have done so.  I am sure the Council of Europe would be happy to broker this for us and am copying Sophie and Peter to see if we can engage them to help with this task.

I must say I am getting very weary of this endless debate, and commend the patience of folks like Michael who have been witnessing it for a decade longer than I have. I would remind everybody that there has been no substantive change in the actual application of the EU laws to ICANN, except for the 4% fines.  Now, of course, as Bob Dylan famously said, money doesn't talk, it screams......

Stephanie Perrin

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:

 

1. Provide the list of questions to Hamilton for a response
2. 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

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg