[Info] German Court Rules on ICANN Request to Preserve WHOIS Data

[Giuseppe De Francesco]

Dear all,

I've been a silent reader until now because GDPR jurisprudence is still
building up, and my daily GDPR compliance work doesn't qualify me to argue
with a bunch of lawyers, but this is getting off track, and I feel that it
is time to chime in. There is enough knowledge about Data Protection (DP)
expressed via Article 29 Working Party (A29WP) over the years to clear
issues like this without even having to talk about it.

The only problem I see here is about culture. USA vs EU cultural gap. To
any EU person, Whois has always been borderline illegal, but we didn't have
any law like the GDPR yet. Therefore, we had to keep it to ourselves.
Meanwhile, Americans made a lot of money by monetising the Right to Privacy
offering Whois protection as a domain add-on. It's just as shameful as
monetising public water.

Now we have the GDPR coming into force after two years grace period (I
define those "2 years of denial"), and everybody tries to find a loophole
in the GDPR to get away with DP violations. Well, let me break this to you
guys: there aren't any loopholes, just accept this fact and move on. Google
Spain ruling (http://bit.ly/GoogleSpainRuling) should have clarified that
in the EU we have a different approach to DP. If Google got kicked before
the GDPR, do you think that now is the time to look for loopholes?
Please...

Best regards,
Pino



On 31 May 2018 at 08:23, valentina hvale pellizzer <
valentina at oneworldplatform.net> wrote:

> Well
>
> I know will sound foolish but why would be staff accountability off the
> table? than what is the sense of all these committee, consultations,
> working groups, big transitions, big policies.
>
> Find it very depressing and exploitive
>
> hvale
>
> On 05/31/2018 09:13 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> It was a very strange legal strategy that ICANN employed. Now that it has
> failed, I wonder what action ICANN org will take next -- I presume staff
> accountability for mishandling the issue, and putting forward such
> questionable advice, is off the table, but what's plan D? What will finally
> give ICANN org the "clarity" it so desperately craves?
>
> "While ICANN appreciates the prompt attention the Court paid to this
> matter, the Court's ruling today did not provide the clarity that ICANN was
> seeking when it initiated the injunction proceedings," said John Jeffrey,
> ICANN's General Counsel and Secretary.
>
> —Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 31 May 2018 6:14 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> you can find here the update on litigation initiated by ICANN
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en. the court
> rejected injunction requested by ICANN.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> --
> valentina pellizzer
> President
> One World Platform
> https://oneworldplatform.net/
>
> mobile: +387 (0)61 484 038
> twitter: @froatosebe
>
> Fingerprint 30AA 9445 D878 A6C9 FE41 E90D 52A5 36A6 B249 EDA9
>
>
>
>


-- 
<https://about.me/pinodefrancesco?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
Giuseppe (Pino) De Francesco
about.me/pinodefrancesco
<https://about.me/pinodefrancesco?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180531/40ec9518/attachment.htm>