Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Regarding Q4: The phrase "interact with the General Data Protection Regulation" was supposed to be deleted from Q4; strike this phrase and I believe the sentence reads as intended. Q4 is indeed (as I understand it) intended to refer to registrars in their capacity as service providers - for example, when a registrar serves as a technical contact for a domain name. The question asks whether that EU directive requirement on service providers would also apply to registrars. At 04:15 PM 3/6/2017, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for the quick feedback Steve. I encourage Lisa and Susan to respond but also inserted some responses of my own.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 5:38 PM To: 'Lisa Phifer' <lisa@corecom.com>; RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Thanks Lisa. A few quick reactions:
(1) As several members of the WG have repeatedly reminded us in this and other ICANN contexts, some/many/most national data protection authorities within the EU do not/will not/would rather not render advisory opinions. I understand that in fact there will be few if any participants in either of these sessions whose job is actually to enforce a specific national data protection law. Even so, questions asking for legal conclusions about violation of data protection laws (or of the GDPR, which has not yet come into force) in specific circumstances may not be the most constructive way to proceed. I especially marked the last sentence of Q.3 as a good candidate for deletion.
[Gomes, Chuck] Am I correct that you are suggesting that just the last question in Q.3 be deleted, i.e., "If so, would entities that collect and process this data be considered in violation of the Directive and the GDPR?" Regardless, please be ready to repeat this suggestion in our WG call tomorrow so we can see if the WG supports the deletion.
(2) The first sentence of Q. 4 seems a bit garbled. In the second and third sentences, should the references to "registrars" be changed to "registrants"? (I did not know there was any issue to requiring registrars to make their contact information publicly available, though not necessarily in the RDS itself.)
[Gomes, Chuck] I will let Susan & Lisa respond to this, hopefully before the WG call so that any edits made can be reviewed by the WG in our meeting.
(3) Obviously there are more questions here than are likely to be addressed in either the Monday or Wednesday sessions so will there be any effort to prioritize them?
[Gomes, Chuck] They fully realize that there are likely more questions than can be covered, especially if their answers are lengthy. My hope is that some of the questions will be discussed in the cross community session on Monday and that we can then just discuss the remaining questions on Wednesday. Even then, there may be too many so if you have any suggestions regarding priority please communicate them. I will let Susan & Lisa respond regarding whether they discussed priorities.
Thanks and I hope these thoughts are still timely.
Steve Metalitz
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:36 PM To: RDS PDP WG Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Dear all,
A proposed final version of this WG's questions for data commissioners is attached and also posted on our wiki:
* RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8clean.pdf and * RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8markup.docx
Thanks to all who contributed questions and feedback to this list of questions. Please refer to the v8markup document to see how feedback was incorporated to produce the v8clean PDF.
Once finalized during this week's WG call, a clean final list will be transmitted by Chuck to the moderator of the cross-community session:
Monday 13 March 3:15-4:45pm CET (http://sched.co/9nnl)
That list will also be provided to invited speakers for our Wednesday F2F session:
Wednesday 15 March 1:45-3:00pm CET (http://sched.co/9npc)
Best regards, Lisa
Dear all, Although I understand the background of question 4, I would argue that it is a bit out of place in this document. The 2000 European Union e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) that appears to be referred to in question 4 does not concern data protection, and is therefore outside of the mandate of European Union Member States' data protection authorities. Moreover, as the European Union data protection framework only applies to information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, European Union Member States' data protection authorities are not likely to be in a position to discuss the obligation of service providers to make available their contact information under Article 5(1) of that Directive. Some of the other panellists from countries outside the EU might still be interested and in a position to discuss related issues, but I suppose they won't be aware of too many details of the application of European Union legislation. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031 Best, Tjabbe -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 12:26 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; met@msk.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners Regarding Q4: The phrase "interact with the General Data Protection Regulation" was supposed to be deleted from Q4; strike this phrase and I believe the sentence reads as intended. Q4 is indeed (as I understand it) intended to refer to registrars in their capacity as service providers - for example, when a registrar serves as a technical contact for a domain name. The question asks whether that EU directive requirement on service providers would also apply to registrars. At 04:15 PM 3/6/2017, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for the quick feedback Steve. I encourage Lisa and Susan to respond but also inserted some responses of my own.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 5:38 PM To: 'Lisa Phifer' <lisa@corecom.com>; RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Thanks Lisa. A few quick reactions:
(1) As several members of the WG have repeatedly reminded us in this and other ICANN contexts, some/many/most national data protection authorities within the EU do not/will not/would rather not render advisory opinions. I understand that in fact there will be few if any participants in either of these sessions whose job is actually to enforce a specific national data protection law. Even so, questions asking for legal conclusions about violation of data protection laws (or of the GDPR, which has not yet come into force) in specific circumstances may not be the most constructive way to proceed. I especially marked the last sentence of Q.3 as a good candidate for deletion.
[Gomes, Chuck] Am I correct that you are suggesting that just the last question in Q.3 be deleted, i.e., "If so, would entities that collect and process this data be considered in violation of the Directive and the GDPR?" Regardless, please be ready to repeat this suggestion in our WG call tomorrow so we can see if the WG supports the deletion.
(2) The first sentence of Q. 4 seems a bit garbled. In the second and third sentences, should the references to "registrars" be changed to "registrants"? (I did not know there was any issue to requiring registrars to make their contact information publicly available, though not necessarily in the RDS itself.)
[Gomes, Chuck] I will let Susan & Lisa respond to this, hopefully before the WG call so that any edits made can be reviewed by the WG in our meeting.
(3) Obviously there are more questions here than are likely to be addressed in either the Monday or Wednesday sessions so will there be any effort to prioritize them?
[Gomes, Chuck] They fully realize that there are likely more questions than can be covered, especially if their answers are lengthy. My hope is that some of the questions will be discussed in the cross community session on Monday and that we can then just discuss the remaining questions on Wednesday. Even then, there may be too many so if you have any suggestions regarding priority please communicate them. I will let Susan & Lisa respond regarding whether they discussed priorities.
Thanks and I hope these thoughts are still timely.
Steve Metalitz
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:36 PM To: RDS PDP WG Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Dear all,
A proposed final version of this WG's questions for data commissioners is attached and also posted on our wiki:
* RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8clean.pdf and * RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8markup.docx
Thanks to all who contributed questions and feedback to this list of questions. Please refer to the v8markup document to see how feedback was incorporated to produce the v8clean PDF.
Once finalized during this week's WG call, a clean final list will be transmitted by Chuck to the moderator of the cross-community session:
Monday 13 March 3:15-4:45pm CET (http://sched.co/9nnl)
That list will also be provided to invited speakers for our Wednesday F2F session:
Wednesday 15 March 1:45-3:00pm CET (http://sched.co/9npc)
Best regards, Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
I agree, Tjabbe, We covered this within the PPSAI WG, and tho the WG recommended there should be no distinction it does not exclude Registrars from applicable law, that make such a distinction. So the scope is larger then just the EU. Thanks, Theo Tjabbe.BOS@ec.europa.eu schreef op 2017-03-07 09:05 AM:
Dear all,
Although I understand the background of question 4, I would argue that it is a bit out of place in this document.
The 2000 European Union e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) that appears to be referred to in question 4 does not concern data protection, and is therefore outside of the mandate of European Union Member States' data protection authorities. Moreover, as the European Union data protection framework only applies to information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, European Union Member States' data protection authorities are not likely to be in a position to discuss the obligation of service providers to make available their contact information under Article 5(1) of that Directive.
Some of the other panellists from countries outside the EU might still be interested and in a position to discuss related issues, but I suppose they won't be aware of too many details of the application of European Union legislation.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031
Best, Tjabbe
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 12:26 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; met@msk.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Regarding Q4:
The phrase "interact with the General Data Protection Regulation" was supposed to be deleted from Q4; strike this phrase and I believe the sentence reads as intended.
Q4 is indeed (as I understand it) intended to refer to registrars in their capacity as service providers - for example, when a registrar serves as a technical contact for a domain name. The question asks whether that EU directive requirement on service providers would also apply to registrars.
At 04:15 PM 3/6/2017, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for the quick feedback Steve. I encourage Lisa and Susan to respond but also inserted some responses of my own.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 5:38 PM To: 'Lisa Phifer' <lisa@corecom.com>; RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Thanks Lisa. A few quick reactions:
(1) As several members of the WG have repeatedly reminded us in this and other ICANN contexts, some/many/most national data protection authorities within the EU do not/will not/would rather not render advisory opinions. I understand that in fact there will be few if any participants in either of these sessions whose job is actually to enforce a specific national data protection law. Even so, questions asking for legal conclusions about violation of data protection laws (or of the GDPR, which has not yet come into force) in specific circumstances may not be the most constructive way to proceed. I especially marked the last sentence of Q.3 as a good candidate for deletion.
[Gomes, Chuck] Am I correct that you are suggesting that just the last question in Q.3 be deleted, i.e., "If so, would entities that collect and process this data be considered in violation of the Directive and the GDPR?" Regardless, please be ready to repeat this suggestion in our WG call tomorrow so we can see if the WG supports the deletion.
(2) The first sentence of Q. 4 seems a bit garbled. In the second and third sentences, should the references to "registrars" be changed to "registrants"? (I did not know there was any issue to requiring registrars to make their contact information publicly available, though not necessarily in the RDS itself.)
[Gomes, Chuck] I will let Susan & Lisa respond to this, hopefully before the WG call so that any edits made can be reviewed by the WG in our meeting.
(3) Obviously there are more questions here than are likely to be addressed in either the Monday or Wednesday sessions so will there be any effort to prioritize them?
[Gomes, Chuck] They fully realize that there are likely more questions than can be covered, especially if their answers are lengthy. My hope is that some of the questions will be discussed in the cross community session on Monday and that we can then just discuss the remaining questions on Wednesday. Even then, there may be too many so if you have any suggestions regarding priority please communicate them. I will let Susan & Lisa respond regarding whether they discussed priorities.
Thanks and I hope these thoughts are still timely.
Steve Metalitz
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:36 PM To: RDS PDP WG Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Dear all,
A proposed final version of this WG's questions for data commissioners is attached and also posted on our wiki:
* RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8clean.pdf and * RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8markup.docx
Thanks to all who contributed questions and feedback to this list of questions. Please refer to the v8markup document to see how feedback was incorporated to produce the v8clean PDF.
Once finalized during this week's WG call, a clean final list will be transmitted by Chuck to the moderator of the cross-community session:
Monday 13 March 3:15-4:45pm CET (http://sched.co/9nnl)
That list will also be provided to invited speakers for our Wednesday F2F session:
Wednesday 15 March 1:45-3:00pm CET (http://sched.co/9npc)
Best regards, Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Let's discuss question 4 further in today's meeting. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tjabbe.BOS@ec.europa.eu Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 3:06 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners Dear all, Although I understand the background of question 4, I would argue that it is a bit out of place in this document. The 2000 European Union e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) that appears to be referred to in question 4 does not concern data protection, and is therefore outside of the mandate of European Union Member States' data protection authorities. Moreover, as the European Union data protection framework only applies to information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, European Union Member States' data protection authorities are not likely to be in a position to discuss the obligation of service providers to make available their contact information under Article 5(1) of that Directive. Some of the other panellists from countries outside the EU might still be interested and in a position to discuss related issues, but I suppose they won't be aware of too many details of the application of European Union legislation. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031 Best, Tjabbe -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 12:26 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; met@msk.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners Regarding Q4: The phrase "interact with the General Data Protection Regulation" was supposed to be deleted from Q4; strike this phrase and I believe the sentence reads as intended. Q4 is indeed (as I understand it) intended to refer to registrars in their capacity as service providers - for example, when a registrar serves as a technical contact for a domain name. The question asks whether that EU directive requirement on service providers would also apply to registrars. At 04:15 PM 3/6/2017, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for the quick feedback Steve. I encourage Lisa and Susan to respond but also inserted some responses of my own.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 5:38 PM To: 'Lisa Phifer' <lisa@corecom.com>; RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Thanks Lisa. A few quick reactions:
(1) As several members of the WG have repeatedly reminded us in this and other ICANN contexts, some/many/most national data protection authorities within the EU do not/will not/would rather not render advisory opinions. I understand that in fact there will be few if any participants in either of these sessions whose job is actually to enforce a specific national data protection law. Even so, questions asking for legal conclusions about violation of data protection laws (or of the GDPR, which has not yet come into force) in specific circumstances may not be the most constructive way to proceed. I especially marked the last sentence of Q.3 as a good candidate for deletion.
[Gomes, Chuck] Am I correct that you are suggesting that just the last question in Q.3 be deleted, i.e., "If so, would entities that collect and process this data be considered in violation of the Directive and the GDPR?" Regardless, please be ready to repeat this suggestion in our WG call tomorrow so we can see if the WG supports the deletion.
(2) The first sentence of Q. 4 seems a bit garbled. In the second and third sentences, should the references to "registrars" be changed to "registrants"? (I did not know there was any issue to requiring registrars to make their contact information publicly available, though not necessarily in the RDS itself.)
[Gomes, Chuck] I will let Susan & Lisa respond to this, hopefully before the WG call so that any edits made can be reviewed by the WG in our meeting.
(3) Obviously there are more questions here than are likely to be addressed in either the Monday or Wednesday sessions so will there be any effort to prioritize them?
[Gomes, Chuck] They fully realize that there are likely more questions than can be covered, especially if their answers are lengthy. My hope is that some of the questions will be discussed in the cross community session on Monday and that we can then just discuss the remaining questions on Wednesday. Even then, there may be too many so if you have any suggestions regarding priority please communicate them. I will let Susan & Lisa respond regarding whether they discussed priorities.
Thanks and I hope these thoughts are still timely.
Steve Metalitz
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:36 PM To: RDS PDP WG Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Dear all,
A proposed final version of this WG's questions for data commissioners is attached and also posted on our wiki:
* RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8clean.pdf and * RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8markup.docx
Thanks to all who contributed questions and feedback to this list of questions. Please refer to the v8markup document to see how feedback was incorporated to produce the v8clean PDF.
Once finalized during this week's WG call, a clean final list will be transmitted by Chuck to the moderator of the cross-community session:
Monday 13 March 3:15-4:45pm CET (http://sched.co/9nnl)
That list will also be provided to invited speakers for our Wednesday F2F session:
Wednesday 15 March 1:45-3:00pm CET (http://sched.co/9npc)
Best regards, Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Please call me back. Please allow me to speak. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network. Original Message From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 11:57 AM To: Tjabbe.BOS@ec.europa.eu; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners Let's discuss question 4 further in today's meeting. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tjabbe.BOS@ec.europa.eu Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 3:06 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners Dear all, Although I understand the background of question 4, I would argue that it is a bit out of place in this document. The 2000 European Union e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) that appears to be referred to in question 4 does not concern data protection, and is therefore outside of the mandate of European Union Member States' data protection authorities. Moreover, as the European Union data protection framework only applies to information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, European Union Member States' data protection authorities are not likely to be in a position to discuss the obligation of service providers to make available their contact information under Article 5(1) of that Directive. Some of the other panellists from countries outside the EU might still be interested and in a position to discuss related issues, but I suppose they won't be aware of too many details of the application of European Union legislation. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031 Best, Tjabbe -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 12:26 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; met@msk.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners Regarding Q4: The phrase "interact with the General Data Protection Regulation" was supposed to be deleted from Q4; strike this phrase and I believe the sentence reads as intended. Q4 is indeed (as I understand it) intended to refer to registrars in their capacity as service providers - for example, when a registrar serves as a technical contact for a domain name. The question asks whether that EU directive requirement on service providers would also apply to registrars. At 04:15 PM 3/6/2017, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for the quick feedback Steve. I encourage Lisa and Susan to respond but also inserted some responses of my own.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 5:38 PM To: 'Lisa Phifer' <lisa@corecom.com>; RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Thanks Lisa. A few quick reactions:
(1) As several members of the WG have repeatedly reminded us in this and other ICANN contexts, some/many/most national data protection authorities within the EU do not/will not/would rather not render advisory opinions. I understand that in fact there will be few if any participants in either of these sessions whose job is actually to enforce a specific national data protection law. Even so, questions asking for legal conclusions about violation of data protection laws (or of the GDPR, which has not yet come into force) in specific circumstances may not be the most constructive way to proceed. I especially marked the last sentence of Q.3 as a good candidate for deletion.
[Gomes, Chuck] Am I correct that you are suggesting that just the last question in Q.3 be deleted, i.e., "If so, would entities that collect and process this data be considered in violation of the Directive and the GDPR?" Regardless, please be ready to repeat this suggestion in our WG call tomorrow so we can see if the WG supports the deletion.
(2) The first sentence of Q. 4 seems a bit garbled. In the second and third sentences, should the references to "registrars" be changed to "registrants"? (I did not know there was any issue to requiring registrars to make their contact information publicly available, though not necessarily in the RDS itself.)
[Gomes, Chuck] I will let Susan & Lisa respond to this, hopefully before the WG call so that any edits made can be reviewed by the WG in our meeting.
(3) Obviously there are more questions here than are likely to be addressed in either the Monday or Wednesday sessions so will there be any effort to prioritize them?
[Gomes, Chuck] They fully realize that there are likely more questions than can be covered, especially if their answers are lengthy. My hope is that some of the questions will be discussed in the cross community session on Monday and that we can then just discuss the remaining questions on Wednesday. Even then, there may be too many so if you have any suggestions regarding priority please communicate them. I will let Susan & Lisa respond regarding whether they discussed priorities.
Thanks and I hope these thoughts are still timely.
Steve Metalitz
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:36 PM To: RDS PDP WG Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Questions for Data Commissioners
Dear all,
A proposed final version of this WG's questions for data commissioners is attached and also posted on our wiki:
* RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8clean.pdf and * RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-v8markup.docx
Thanks to all who contributed questions and feedback to this list of questions. Please refer to the v8markup document to see how feedback was incorporated to produce the v8clean PDF.
Once finalized during this week's WG call, a clean final list will be transmitted by Chuck to the moderator of the cross-community session:
Monday 13 March 3:15-4:45pm CET (http://sched.co/9nnl)
That list will also be provided to invited speakers for our Wednesday F2F session:
Wednesday 15 March 1:45-3:00pm CET (http://sched.co/9npc)
Best regards, Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
gtheo -
Lisa Phifer -
Stephanie Perrin -
Tjabbe.BOS＠ec.europa.eu