Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks again, Marika. :)

Amr

On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The waiver request and supporting materials can be found here: 
> http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/updates/retention/waiver-request-ovh-sas-27jan14-en.pdf.
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday 17 March 2014 13:31
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS
> 
> Thanks Volker and Marika. I had missed the preliminary notice in January. 
> After a quick Google search, I couldn’t find any links to OVH’s application 
> for a waiver. Is that publicly archived?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>