Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS
You may also be interested in the following blog post on this topic: http://blog.icann.org/2014/02/update-on-2013-raa-and-data-retention-waiver-p rocess/. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Monday 17 March 2014 13:37 To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS The waiver request and supporting materials can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/updates/retention/waiver-reques t-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 Attachment:
smime.p7s
|