Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models

[Ayden Férdeline]

Hi Caleb,

While I appreciate that not all countries have data protection laws, privacy remains a fundamental human right. My suggestion is thus that we should adopt the highest level of protection for all domain name registrants. And I suspect it is a lot easier to implement one model, rather than fragmented models for different jurisdictions.

Please also remember that ICANN sets policy by contract; i.e. registries, registrars, and registrants agree by contract to follow the rules and policies created by ICANN, and these policies can be revised and deleted. So while ICANN must of course comply with the law, it can adopt and impose a higher standard on the contracted parties.

Many thanks,

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
> Local Time: 14 January 2018 3:56 PM
> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 14:56
> From: muyiwacaleb at GMAIL.COM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Hello Badii and Ayden,
>
> For me, i think the Model 2A serves the purposes. Don't forget that not all countries have data protection laws or policy in place.
> Hence, based on jurisdiction, they cannot be governed by laws that is peculiar to a certain continent or sovereign state.
>
> Caleb Ogundele
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> I could live with the second model.
>>
>> The key differentiation between Model 2A and 2B is its applicability: 2A applies only "where the registrant, registry, registrar or a processor are located in the European Economic Area"; 2B "applies to all registrations on a global basis without regard to location of registry, registrar registrant, and processing activities"
>>
>> On this basis I think Model 2B is the best path forward. To have fragmented approaches for different regions would be a mistake, in my opinion.
>>
>> Given the short turnaround time here (we need to agree on a position and submit a comment by 29 January) and other obstacles between now and then (Intersessional, GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session), may I suggest that we schedule a call next week to discuss our response?
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
>>> Local Time: 13 January 2018 7:40 PM
>>> UTC Time: 13 January 2018 18:40
>>> From: farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>
>>> Please see the CEO blog on Data protection and privacy:
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-modelshttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models
>>>
>>> We should understand these models, discuss them and provide feedback.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Farzaneh
>
> --
> Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb
> muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
> 234 - 8077377378
> 234 - 07030777969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180114/646603d0/attachment.htm>