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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

GDPR is not that different from data protection legislation following the
Council of Europe 109 Convention (which is signed by several countries
outside Europe including mine) and so it is a common standard in many of
its principles. it added more enforcement. Following it would make more
sense in term of implementation and offering a stronger protections to
registrants.
GDPR has the merit to highlight how whois is misused in the first place and
how it put user rights in danger. We have to move from this situation and
ensure a better data protection for all registrants, something that is is
among our advocacy goals.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-15 0:58 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>:

> Colleagues,
>
> I may have an overly simplistic view of the issue here, but I would like
> to put it on the table. ICANN has a narrow remit within the growing area of
> global, regional (e.g. EU), and national Internet governance. It exercises
> that remit through a serious of contracts with entities (registrars and
> registries) that operate under diverse national Internet governance
> jurisdictions.
>
> With differing specific data protection language in diverse contexts, it
> is highly unlikely that ICANN can draft “higher standard” contract language
> that will satisfy the data privacy regulations of all, most, or even many,
> national data privacy regimes. So, what is the path forward here?
>
> There seem to be two components of a path forward. First, ICANN must
> figure out how it exercises ICANN agency as a stakeholder in the various
> legislative policy venues in which data privacy and other Internet
> governance policy is debated and where regulations are formed. Some ICANN
> stakeholders already “have skin in those games” and are already present in
> those policy debates. ICANN writes contract language and needs to be
> engaged as a stakeholder.
>
> Second, in contrast to seeking “higher standard” contract language, ICANN
> may need to look for “minimum conditions” contract language that offers
> contracted parties maximum freedom to negotiate with and meet the
> conditions of national Internet governance policies. At the same time ICANN
> can use its agency as a stakeholder to press for “higher standard” national
> policies that harmonize regulations, and facilitate the work and interests
> of various stakeholders in the Internet ecosystem.
>
> In short, the path forward may be (a) more ICANN agency as a stakeholder,
> and (b) minimal contract language to maximize the ability of contracted
> parties to deal with national policies and regulations.
>
> Sam L.
>
>
>
> On 1/14/2018 10:02 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> 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-models
>>
>> We should understand these models, discuss them and provide feedback.
>>
>> Best
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb*
> *muyiwacaleb at gmail.com <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>*
> *234 - 8077377378*
> *234 - 07030777969 <070-3077-7969>*
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>  邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 <+1%20613-476-0429> cell: +1 416-816-2852 <+1%20416-816-2852>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180114/b00dfb02/attachment.htm>