ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS

  • To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:07:45 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <5326D66D.8020203@key-systems.net>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <BEF29B96-9341-4FA1-8A27-F47E0451D032@egyptig.org> <5326D66D.8020203@key-systems.net>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac9B0SEP4ZplIVdPSTq7eRDoU5jEyQ==
  • Thread-topic: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030

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
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



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