Re: [council] DATA RETENTION WAIVER OVH SAS

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks again, Marika. This is very helpful. It does, however, raise yet a 
number of new questions for me that I will try do a little homework on and prep 
properly. For one thing, I am interested to learn more about the “considerable 
investments of time and resources by ICANN and registrars alike” used to 
navigate through the complexities and diversity of national privacy laws. That 
seems to be a great deal of work that we may benefit from in other areas of the 
GNSO's work, and should probably make ourselves more familiar with.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:47 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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-process/.
>  
> 
> 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-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
>