ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS

  • To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS
  • From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:03:09 +0100
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :in-reply-to:references:subject:subject:to:mime-version :user-agent:from:from:date:date:message-id; s=dkim; t= 1395054197; x=1395918197; bh=d1SABA7bslvUAq4PTYO/HD8w7r9PYqQG9Ah pu0J/Vk8=; b=UfAKw84xtzPKUC5ITEWg0EXSxWpz00M/DmFgeXewKuSsAIzdQMH xCuCHKSEaCqqf5z2EEKJ2ZclA1aw8FRac0C5aDN34CZ8kIosKvQQbN3FDrMofE5v df2fjZCd3WgpkUAb1dLEHjxgrOB+kEh4OGuczYtFnrf5vTqyzrvP8UYo=
  • In-reply-to: <BEF29B96-9341-4FA1-8A27-F47E0451D032@egyptig.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <BEF29B96-9341-4FA1-8A27-F47E0451D032@egyptig.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0

Hi Amr,
nothin has changed. The reason OVH got their waiver because in their application they only asked for what ICANN sees as a "compromise solution" that does not really meet the legal requirements of most European registrars. 

Volker





Am 17.03.2014 11:58, schrieb Amr Elsadr:

Hi,

I had meant to send an email about this earlier, but then the U.S. gov decided 
to steal the spotlight and attention (including mine) from most other issues. I 
was curious about the process and circumstances regarding this announcement:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12mar14-en.htm

Last year, the EU's Article 29 Data Protection Working Party sent a letter to 
ICANN 
(http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/kohnstamm-to-crocker-chehade-06jun13-en),
 requesting waivers to EU-based registrars, but ICANN did not seem to respond 
in agreement in their reply 
(http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/jeffrey-to-kohnstamm-20sep13-en).

So what changed? Was the ICANN Procedure For Handling Conflicts with Privacy 
Law used? Was it something else? I believe this is something worth taking 
notice of, especially with the ongoing WHOIS activities?

I can’t seem to find any details? Can someone point me in the right direction?

Thanks.

Amr
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>