My apologies.  There is a lot of work involved here is dissecting what the decision means in terms of jurisdictional issues.  There are three issues that are key in my view, just off the top, but I need to study the document.

• Where the registrars are required to escrow data is critical if nation states attempt to access it for law enforcement purposes, outside an MLAT.  Recall that EU registrars report difficulties in getting their preferred escrow agents accepted in lieu of Iron Mountain
• Where the RDS (whether a central database or federated or completely disaggregated) resides becomes important for law enforcement access. 
  
• Where the Registrar, who has important data retention requirements under the 2013 RAA, keeps its data becomes important.

I hope this helps.  Once I digest the document, I promise more detail.  However, this is an important development (pending a potential appeal to the Supreme Court of course, or legislative change which seems unlikely given the current congressional realities)

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:46:10PM +0200, Volker Greimann wrote:

I think we all agreed earlier that there would not be a cut-off line for new
documents.

I, at least, was not advocating a cut-off.  I was more pleading that,
when people offer new things that are supposed to offer some new
perspective, that there actually be some new perspective there.  A
great deal of the material that I've read so far is mostly the same
things over and over.  I hardly see how that helps us narrow the use
cases or figure out what the right thing to do is.

It won't do to try to argue from the size of the stack of reports
arguing for one view or the other.  I think Chuck's suggestion is a
good one: if you add something new to the pile, it'd be helpful to say
what's new about it apart from the authors.

Best regards,

A