Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS
To add to Volker's response, the process used to request this waiver under the 2013 RAA can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/updates/retention. Further information about this specific request can also be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27jan14-en.htm. Best regards, Marika On 17/03/14 12:03, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >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 can¹t seem to find any details? Can someone point me in the right >>direction? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|