[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [urgent] Draft Comments for Whois Proceeding
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Thu Jul 31 18:56:20 EEST 2014
So I vote yes, and am reviewing the last text Kathy sent right now...
SP
On 2014-07-31, 11:53, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> thank you for the changes, we should hear from other member of PC,
> Maria can make the last call and declare consensus.
> the deadline for sending the comment is 1 Aug 2014 23:59 UTC, so we
> need to get endorsement before that.
>
> Best,
> Rafik
>
>
> 2014-08-01 0:09 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
>
> Hi Stephanie,
> Tx for adding Avri's comments. I've reviewed all of the changes,
> and also added one more to this most recent version. _Newest
> version (NCSGEdits3) attached. _
> **Due tomorrow**
> Best,
> Kathy
> :
>> I also agreed with Avri and inserted a few of her changes, Kathy
>> did not get those edits....we need to make sure we have a final
>> copy that Rafik can sign, which reflects all the agreed changes.
>> Do you want me to have another edit one last time, to make sure
>> that Joy's comments (which were on an earlier draft) and Avri's
>> are all in there?
>> cheers stephanie
>> On 2014-07-31, 9:22, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed the document.
>>>>
>>>> Made a change so it could be a NCSG document.
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>> There are parts I am uncomfortable with, some of which I
>>>> deleted and
>>>> some of which I left and still am uncomfortable with.
>>>>
>>>> I do not think we should ever dismiss the Multistakeholder
>>>> model. I do
>>>> not wish to find ourselves in the situation of being quoted for
>>>> having
>>>> suggested that there are times when the model should be
>>>> superseded. That
>>>> would be a gold mine for some. I deleted those references.
>>> Fully agree. Although I don't feel that was the intent, it could
>>> certainly be perceived that way. No need to bring it up.
>>>
>>>> I am also uncomfortable with saying there are things that don't
>>>> need
>>>> public comment on. To just have to take the legal staff view
>>>> on things
>>>> is dangerous. What if they say the law does not require
>>>> something when
>>>> someone knows better. Better to have a null review. I have not,
>>>> however, removed these as they were an entire section. I
>>>> would like
>>>> to see that section reworded or removed before approving the
>>>> documents.
>>> IMHO, I don't see the need for a public comment period on every
>>> time this policy might be used. If a new set of policies and
>>> processes are adopted for handling WHOIS conflicts with privacy
>>> laws, then they should be clear enough during implementation to
>>> not require public comment, right? Isn't this the case with all
>>> policies? For instance, is there a public comment period every
>>> time a new registrar signs a contract with ICANN? Or will there
>>> be a public comment period when implementation of the "thick"
>>> WHOIS policy kicks in?
>>>
>>> Another thought is that a public comment period will also
>>> lengthen the period during which a registrar will potentially be
>>> at risk for non-compliance with local laws. Unless there is an
>>> important reason why there should be a public comment for each
>>> of the resolution scenarios, then I suggest we support Kathy's
>>> recommendation to not have any.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> I also removed a bunch of weasel words like 'respectfully'
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30-Jul-14 14:28, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Started reviewing them, actually Stephanie's comments. They
>>>>> are written
>>>>> from an NCUC perspective and need to be approved by them, not us.
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30-Jul-14 11:36, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kathy sent a draft comment to the whois conflict with local
>>>>>> laws. we
>>>>>> have a tight schedule and we should act quickly.
>>>>>> we are responding during the reply period which means the
>>>>>> last chance
>>>>>> for us to do so.
>>>>>> @Maria can you please follow-up with this request?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: *Kathy Kleiman* <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>>>>> Date: 2014-07-30 2:44 GMT+09:00
>>>>>> Subject: Draft Comments for Whois Proceeding
>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>,
>>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To Rafik, NCSG Executive Committee and NCSG Membership,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an important, but very quiet comment proceeding that
>>>>>> has been
>>>>>> taking place this summer. It is the /Review of the ICANN
>>>>>> Procedure for
>>>>>> Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law///at
>>>>>> /https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-conflicts-procedure-2014-05-22-en/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephanie put out a call for comments, and not seeing any, I
>>>>>> drafted
>>>>>> these. It has been dismayeding ever since ICANN adopted its
>>>>>> Consensus
>>>>>> Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy law --
>>>>>> because it
>>>>>> basically requires that Registrars and Registries have to be
>>>>>> sued or
>>>>>> receive an official notice of violation before they can ask
>>>>>> ICANN for a
>>>>>> waiver of the Whois requirements. That always seemed very
>>>>>> unfair- that
>>>>>> you have to be exposed to allegation of illegal activity in
>>>>>> order to
>>>>>> protect yourself or your Registrants under your national data
>>>>>> protection
>>>>>> and privacy laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the more recent Data Retention Specification, of the 2013
>>>>>> RAA, ICANN
>>>>>> Staff and Lawyers saw this problem and corrected it -- now
>>>>>> Registrars
>>>>>> can be much more pro-active in showing ICANN that a certain
>>>>>> clause in
>>>>>> their contract (e.g., extended data retention) is a clear
>>>>>> violation of
>>>>>> their national law (e.g., more limited data retention).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So to this important comment proceeding, I drafted these
>>>>>> comments for us
>>>>>> to submit. As Reply Comments (during the Reply Period), we
>>>>>> are asked to
>>>>>> respond to other commenters. That's easy as the European
>>>>>> Commission and
>>>>>> Registrar Blacknight submitted useful comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik, can we edit, finalize and submit by the deadline on
>>>>>> Friday?
>>>>>> Comments below and attached. If you have edits, in the
>>>>>> interest of time,
>>>>>> kindly suggest alternate language. Tx!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DRAFT NCSG Response to the Questions of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Review of the ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts
>>>>>> with Privacy
>>>>>> Law//
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-conflicts-procedure-2014-05-22-en/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Introduction*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group represents noncommercial
>>>>>> organizations in their work in the policy and proceedings of
>>>>>> ICANN and
>>>>>> the GNSO. We respectfully submit as an opening premise that
>>>>>> every legal
>>>>>> business has the right and obligation to operate within the
>>>>>> bounds and
>>>>>> limits of its national laws and regulations. No legal business
>>>>>> establishes itself to violate the law; and to do so is an
>>>>>> invitation to
>>>>>> civil and criminal penalties. ICANN Registries and Registrars
>>>>>> are no
>>>>>> different -- they want and need to abide by their laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, it is timely for ICANN to raise the questions of this
>>>>>> proceeding,
>>>>>> /Review of the ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts
>>>>>> with Privacy
>>>>>> Law/(albeit at a busy time for the Community and at the
>>>>>> height of
>>>>>> summer; we expect to see more interest in this time towards
>>>>>> the Fall).
>>>>>> We submit these comments in response to the issues raises and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> questions asked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Background*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The /ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with
>>>>>> Privacy Law /was
>>>>>> adopted in 2006 after years of debate on Whois issues. This
>>>>>> Consensus
>>>>>> Procedure was the first step of recognition that data
>>>>>> protection laws
>>>>>> and privacy law DO apply to the personal and sensitive data
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> collected by Registries and Registrars for the Whois database.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for those of us in the Noncommercial Users Constituency
>>>>>> (now part of
>>>>>> the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group/NCSG) who helped debate,
>>>>>> draft and
>>>>>> adopt this Consensus Procedure in the mid-2000s, we were
>>>>>> always shocked
>>>>>> that the ICANN Community did not do more. At the time,
>>>>>> multiple Whois
>>>>>> Task Forces were at work with multiple proposals which
>>>>>> include important
>>>>>> and pro-active suggestions to allow Registrars and Registries
>>>>>> to come
>>>>>> into compliance with their national data protection and
>>>>>> privacy laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the time, we never expected this Consensus Procedure to be
>>>>>> an end
>>>>>> itself -- but the first step of many steps. It was an "end"
>>>>>> for too long,
>>>>>> so we are glad the discussion is reopened and once again we
>>>>>> seek to
>>>>>> allow Registrars and Registries to be in full compliance with
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> national data protection and privacy laws -- from the moment
>>>>>> they enter
>>>>>> into their contracts with ICANN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *II. Data Protection and Privacy Laws -- A Quick Overview of the
>>>>>> Principles that Protect the Personal and Sensitive Data of
>>>>>> Individuals
>>>>>> and Organizations/Small Businesses *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*[Stephanie, Tamir or Others with Expertise in Canadian and
>>>>>> European
>>>>>> Data Protection Laws may choose to add something here]. */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> III/*. */Questions asked of the Community in this Proceeding
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ICANN Review Paper raised a number of excellent
>>>>>> questions. In
>>>>>> keeping with the requirements of a Reply Period, these NCSG
>>>>>> comments
>>>>>> will address both our comments and those comments we
>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> support in this proceeding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it impractical for ICANN to require that a
>>>>>> contracted party
>>>>>> already has litigation or a government proceeding
>>>>>> initiated
>>>>>> against it prior to being able to invoke the Whois
>>>>>> Procedure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.1 Response: Yes, it is completely impractical (and
>>>>>> ill-advised) to
>>>>>> force a company to violate a national law as a condition of
>>>>>> complying
>>>>>> with that national law. Every lawyer advises businesses to
>>>>>> comply with
>>>>>> the laws and regulations of their field. To do otherwise is
>>>>>> to face
>>>>>> fines, penalties, loss of the business, even jail for
>>>>>> officers and
>>>>>> directors. Legal business strives to be law-abiding; no
>>>>>> officer or
>>>>>> director wants to go to jail for her company's violations. It
>>>>>> is the
>>>>>> essence of an attorney's advice to his/her clients to fully
>>>>>> comply with
>>>>>> the laws and operate clearly within the clear boundaries and
>>>>>> limits of
>>>>>> laws and regulations, both national, by province or state and
>>>>>> local.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In these Reply Comments, we support and encourage ICANN to adopt
>>>>>> policies consistent with the initial comments submitted by
>>>>>> the European
>>>>>> Commission:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that the Whois Procedure be changed from requiring
>>>>>> specific
>>>>>> prosecutorial action instead to allowing
>>>>>> "demonstrating evidence
>>>>>> of a potential conflict widely and e.g. accepting
>>>>>> information on
>>>>>> the legislation imposing requirements that the
>>>>>> contractual
>>>>>> requirements would breach as sufficient evidence."
>>>>>> (European
>>>>>> Commission comments)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also agree with Blacknight:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It's completely illogical for ICANN to require that a
>>>>>> contracting party already has litigation before they
>>>>>> can use a
>>>>>> process. We would have loved to use a procedure or
>>>>>> process to
>>>>>> get exemptions, but expecting us to already be
>>>>>> litigating before
>>>>>> we can do so is, for lack of a better word, nuts."
>>>>>> (Blacknight
>>>>>> comments in this proceeding).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.1a How can the triggering event be meaningfully defined?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.1 a Response: This is an important question. Rephrased, we
>>>>>> might ask
>>>>>> together -- what must a Registry or Registrar show ICANN in
>>>>>> support of
>>>>>> its claim that certain provisions involving Whois data violate
>>>>>> provisions of national data protection and privacy laws?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NCSG respectfully submits that there are at least four
>>>>>> "triggering
>>>>>> events" that ICANN should recognize:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evidence from a national Data Protection Commissioner
>>>>>> or his/her
>>>>>> office (or from a internationally recognized body of
>>>>>> national
>>>>>> Data Protection Commissioners in a certain region of
>>>>>> the world,
>>>>>> including the Article 29 Working Party that analyzes the
>>>>>> national data protection and privacy laws) that ICANN's
>>>>>> contractual obligations for Registry and/or Registrar
>>>>>> contracts
>>>>>> violate the data protection laws of their country or
>>>>>> their group
>>>>>> of countries;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evidence of legal and/or jurisdictional conflict
>>>>>> arising from
>>>>>> analysis performed by ICANN's legal department or by
>>>>>> national
>>>>>> legal experts hired by ICANN to evaluate the Whois
>>>>>> requirements
>>>>>> of the ICANN contracts for compliance and conflicts with
>>>>>> national data protection laws and cross-border
>>>>>> transfer limits)
>>>>>> (similar to the process we understand was undertaken
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> data retention issue);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Receipt of a written legal opinion from a nationally
>>>>>> recognized
>>>>>> law firm in the applicable jurisdiction that states
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> collection, retention and/or transfer of certain Whois
>>>>>> data
>>>>>> elements as required by Registrar or Registry
>>>>>> Agreements is
>>>>>> "reasonably likely to violate the applicable law" of the
>>>>>> Registry or Registrar (per the process allowed in RAA
>>>>>> Data
>>>>>> Retention Specification); or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An official opinion of any other governmental body of
>>>>>> competent
>>>>>> jurisdiction providing that compliance with the data
>>>>>> protection
>>>>>> requirements of the Registry/Registrar contracts violates
>>>>>> applicable national law (although such pro-active
>>>>>> opinions may
>>>>>> not be the practice of the Data Protection
>>>>>> Commissioner's office).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above list draws from the comments of the European
>>>>>> Commission, Data
>>>>>> Retention Specification of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation
>>>>>> Agreement,
>>>>>> and sound compliance and business practices for the ICANN
>>>>>> General
>>>>>> Counsel's office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We further agree with Blacknight that the requirements for
>>>>>> triggering
>>>>>> any review and consideration by ICANN be: simple and
>>>>>> straightforward,
>>>>>> quick and easy to access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.3 Are there any components of the triggering
>>>>>> event/notification
>>>>>> portion of the RAA's Data Retention waiver process that
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> considered as optional for incorporation into a modified
>>>>>> Whois Procedure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.3 Response: Absolutely, the full list in 1.1a above,
>>>>>> together with
>>>>>> other constructive contributions in the Comments and Reply
>>>>>> Comments of
>>>>>> this proceeding, should be strongly considered for
>>>>>> incorporation into a
>>>>>> modified Whois Procedure, or simply written into the
>>>>>> contracts of the
>>>>>> Registries and Registrars contractual language, or a new
>>>>>> Annex or
>>>>>> Specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We respectfully submit that the obligation of Registries and
>>>>>> Registrars
>>>>>> to comply with their national laws is not a matter of
>>>>>> multistakeholder
>>>>>> decision making, but a matter of law and compliance. In this
>>>>>> case, we
>>>>>> wholeheartedly embrace the concept of building a process
>>>>>> together that
>>>>>> will allow exceptions for data protection and privacy laws to
>>>>>> be adopted
>>>>>> quickly and easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.4 Should parties be permitted to invoke the Whois
>>>>>> Procedure before
>>>>>> contracting with ICANN as a registrar or registry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.4 Response: Of course, Registries and Registrars should be
>>>>>> allowed to
>>>>>> invoke the Whois Procedure, or other appropriate annexes and
>>>>>> specifications that may be added into Registry and Registrar
>>>>>> contracts
>>>>>> with ICANN. As discussed above, the right of a legal company
>>>>>> to enter
>>>>>> into a legal contracts is the most basic of expectations
>>>>>> under law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.1 Are there other relevant parties who should be
>>>>>> included in this
>>>>>> step?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.1 Response: We agree with the EC that ICANN should be
>>>>>> working as
>>>>>> closely with National Data Protection Authorities as they
>>>>>> will allow. In
>>>>>> light of the overflow of work into these national
>>>>>> commissions, and the
>>>>>> availability of national experts at law firms, ICANN should
>>>>>> also turn to
>>>>>> the advice of private experts, such as well-respected law
>>>>>> firms who
>>>>>> specialize in national data protection laws. The law firm's
>>>>>> opinions on
>>>>>> these matters would help to guide ICANN's knowledge and
>>>>>> evaluation of
>>>>>> this important issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.1 How is an agreement reached and published?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.1 Response. As discussed above, compliance with national
>>>>>> law may not
>>>>>> be the best matter for negotiation within a multistakeholder
>>>>>> process. It
>>>>>> really should not be a chose for others to make whether you
>>>>>> comply with
>>>>>> your national data protection and privacy laws. That said,
>>>>>> the process
>>>>>> of refining the Consensus Procedure, and adopting new
>>>>>> policies and
>>>>>> procedures, or simply putting new contract provisions,
>>>>>> annexes or
>>>>>> specifications into the Registry and Registrar contracts
>>>>>> SHOULD be
>>>>>> subject to community discussion, notification and review. But
>>>>>> once the
>>>>>> new process is adopted, we think the new changes, variations,
>>>>>> modifications or exceptions of Individual Registries and
>>>>>> Registrars need
>>>>>> go through a public review and process. The results, however,
>>>>>> Should be
>>>>>> published for Community notification and review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We note that in conducting the discussion with the Community
>>>>>> on the
>>>>>> overall or general procedure, policy or contractual changes,
>>>>>> ICANN
>>>>>> should be assertive in its outreach to the Data Protection
>>>>>> Commissioners. Individual and through their organizations,
>>>>>> they have
>>>>>> offered to help ICANN evaluate this issue numerous times. The
>>>>>> Whois
>>>>>> Review Team noted the inability of many external bodies to
>>>>>> monitor ICANN
>>>>>> regularly, but the need for outreach to them by ICANN staff
>>>>>> nonetheless:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Recommendation 3: Outreach*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by
>>>>>> cross-community*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of
>>>>>> ICANN with a
>>>>>> specific*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer
>>>>>> awareness.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a critical policy item for such outreach and input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.2 If there is an agreed outcome among the relevant
>>>>>> parties, should
>>>>>> the Board be involved in this procedure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.2 Response: Clearly, the changing of the procedure, or the
>>>>>> adoption of
>>>>>> a new policy or new contractual language for Registries and
>>>>>> Registrars,
>>>>>> Board oversight and review should be involved. But once the new
>>>>>> procedure, policy or contractual language is in place, then
>>>>>> subsequent
>>>>>> individual changes, variations, modifications or exceptions
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> handled through the process and ICANN Staff -- as the Data
>>>>>> Retention
>>>>>> Process is handled today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.1 Would it be fruitful to incorporate public comment in
>>>>>> each of
>>>>>> the resolution scenarios?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.1 Response: We think this question means whether there
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> public input on each and every exception? We respectfully
>>>>>> submit that
>>>>>> the answer is No. Once the new policy, procedure or
>>>>>> contractual language
>>>>>> is adopted, then the process should kick in and the
>>>>>> Registrar/Registry
>>>>>> should be allowed to apply for the waiver, modification or
>>>>>> revision
>>>>>> consistent with its data protection and privacy laws. Of
>>>>>> course, once
>>>>>> the waiver or modification is granted, the decision should be
>>>>>> matter of
>>>>>> public record so that other Registries and Registrars in the
>>>>>> jurisdiction know and so that the ICANN Community as a whole
>>>>>> can monitor
>>>>>> this process' implementation and compliance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Step Five: Public notice
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.2 Is the exemption or modification termed to the length
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> agreement? Or is it indefinite as long as the contracted
>>>>>> party is
>>>>>> located in the jurisdiction in question, or so long as the
>>>>>> applicable
>>>>>> law is in force.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.2 Response: We agree with the European Commission in its
>>>>>> response,
>>>>>> "/By logic the exemption or modification shall be in place as
>>>>>> long as
>>>>>> the party is subject to the jurisdiction in conflict with
>>>>>> ICANN rules.
>>>>>> If the applicable law was to change, or the contacted party
>>>>>> moved to a
>>>>>> different jurisdiction, the conditions should be reviewed to
>>>>>> assess if
>>>>>> the exemption is still justified." But provided it is the
>>>>>> same parties,
>>>>>> operating under the same laws, the modification or change should
>>>>>> continue through the duration of the relationship between the
>>>>>> Registry/Registrar and ICANN. /
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.3 Should an exemption or modification based on the same
>>>>>> laws and
>>>>>> facts then be granted to other affected contracted parties in
>>>>>> the same
>>>>>> jurisdiction without invoking the Whois Procedure
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.3 Response. The European Commission in its comments wrote,
>>>>>> and we
>>>>>> strongly agree: /"the same exception should apply to others
>>>>>> in the same
>>>>>> jurisdiction who can demonstrate that they are in the same
>>>>>> situation."
>>>>>> /Further, Blacknight wrote and we support: /"if ANY registrar in
>>>>>> Germany, for example, is granted a waiver based on German
>>>>>> law, than ALL
>>>>>> registrars based in Germany should receive the same
>>>>>> treatment." /Once a
>>>>>> national data protection or privacy law is interpreted as
>>>>>> requiring and
>>>>>> exemption or modification, it should be available to all
>>>>>> Registries/Registrars in that country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further, we recommend that ICANN should be required to notify
>>>>>> each gTLD
>>>>>> Registry and Registrar in the same jurisdiction as that of
>>>>>> the decision
>>>>>> so they will have notice of the change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We thank ICANN staff for holding this comment period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NCSG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DRAFT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <NSCG DRAFT Comments for Review of WHOIS Consensus
>>>> Proceduresp+ad.doc>_______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140731/b780e48a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list