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

Thu May 31 08:57:17 EEST 2018

Careful guys!

The sentence

"The Court reasoned that because it is possible for a registrant to provide
the same data elements for the registrant as for the administrative and
technical contacts, ICANN did not demonstrate that it is necessary to
collect additional data elements for those contacts. The Court also noted
that a registrant could consent and provide administrative and technical
contact data at its discretion. "

**does not** implies the right to publish those data on a public registry
like WhoIs. That would be a big mistake worth EUR 20M in fines.

Regards,
Pino

On 31 May 2018 at 14:37, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Good news! Yesterday, the German Court ruled for EPAG, the Germany-based,
> ICANN-accredited registrar owned by Tucows.  The following is posted on
> ICANN's website today:
>
> "ICANN asked the Court to intervene after learning that EPAG no longer
> intended to collect such data, citing the GDPR law implementation as its
> rationale. ICANN had long required full WHOIS data to be collected, and was
> requiring registrars such as EPAG to continue to collect the data after the
> GDPR went into full effect. ICANN modified its requirements surrounding how
> others could access this data, limiting access only to those who could
> demonstrate a legitimate purpose (such as in cases of criminal activity,
> intellectual property infringement or Internet Security problems).
> Assessing and identifying a legitimate purpose is a requirement identified
> in the GDPR.
>
> "In rejecting the injunctive relief, the Court ruled that it would not
> require EPAG to collect the adminsitrative and technical data for new
> registrations. However, the Court did not indicate in its ruling that
> collecting such data would be a violation of the GDPR. Rather, the Court
> said that the collection of the domain name registrant data should suffice
> in order to safeguard against misuse the security aspects in connection
> with the domain name (such as criminal activity, infringement or security
> problems).
>
> "The Court reasoned that because it is possible for a registrant to
> provide the same data elements for the registrant as for the administrative
> and technical contacts, ICANN did not demonstrate that it is necessary to
> collect additional data elements for those contacts. The Court also noted
> that a registrant could consent and provide administrative and technical
> contact data at its discretion."
>
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 5/31/2018 4:55 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> I suspect - and this is me being generous in my speculation - that ICANN
> knows their legal strategy is misguided and incorrect, but they are facing
> political pressure on the domestic front. The NTIA Administrator David Redl
> has called ICANN out a few times in speeches for not preserving the WHOIS
> status quo, so I suspect lawsuits like this one are done partly to placate
> the US government. However I do think arrogance, incompetence, and a lack
> of awareness of what exactly the European Union is and what its regulations
> are is also playing a part in the actions being advanced by ICANN org.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 31 May 2018 10:45 AM, Giuseppe De Francesco <defrancescog at GMAIL.COM>
> <defrancescog at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>

-- 
<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/20180531/741a387b/attachment.htm>