[PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions

[Stephanie Perrin]

One more thing that really I forgot to add to Kathy's draft on the EWG response.  I have been saying it non-stop at the EWG but they dont listen.  I just brought it up at the PPSAI.  It is a violation of applicable data protection law to demand that data be released in the WHOIS.  Full stop.  It is of course, as the DPAs have pointed out, a violation to escrow all the data including trafffic data bits, for 18 months after last contact.  iN many jurisdictions, ICANN could solve that problem by stating that the purpose of collection is to help law enforcement, but they woul dhave a hard time justifying solving intellectual property crime or arguments. I think the response to the EWG needs to point out that so far, ICANN is ignoring applicable data protection law. 
On 2014-03-04, at 11:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Yes. Exactly.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 5:22 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 04-Mar-14 16:09, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> The charter questions are pretty awful on this PDP. Voluntary
>>> takedown by the registrant as opposed to reveal is an option we have
>>> proposed as an accreditation clause.
>> 
>> 
>> sure, but that is voluntary by the registrant not the proxy/privacy service provider.
>> 
>> correct?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am reading this now and do not understand what sort of the group
>>>> sis thinking if.  What is this notion of a Proxy/Privacy service
>>>> taking anything down.  What would they have responsibilities beyond
>>>> Notify and Reveal.
>>>> 
>>>> I started to review and I cannot make sense of the questions.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 01-Mar-14 13:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different
>>>>> SOs, ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s
>>>>> charter questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these
>>>>> questions and has received input from other members of the NCSG,
>>>>> including Roy Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m
>>>>> sending copies of this email to both of them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am
>>>>> asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the
>>>>> members of the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>>> list 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 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/20140304/7d9f5dfd/attachment.html>