Technically, the Article 29 WP is indeed an advisory group, and the
Commission might (and at times will) disagree with it.  As a group, the
Article 29 WP has no enforcement authority.

Represented in it, however, are the member states' enforcement authorities.
 If all those tell you something as their consensus on how they're
expecting to interpret and apply the law, then that's perhaps something
worth listening to.

More background:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:18 AM, marie-laure Lemineur
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The EU´s GAC  rep stated to the ICANN Board that Article 29 WP is only a
> independent advisory body ! Referring to the letter, he said "this is not a
> EU position as such but the position of an Advisory Committee"...true  but
> still, considering that this particular advisory body gathers
> representatives of the European Commission, of the EU Data Protection
> Supervisor, and of all national Data Protection Authorities in Europe, they
> represent the authoritative expert voices of the EU on the
> subject....surely their statement should have some value and should weight
> in the debate....
>
> In addition to the letter of Article 29 WP,  the independent Advocate
> General of the European Court of Justice recently (25 June 2013) issued a
> legal opinion (not binding on the EU Court of Justice) that the EU Data
> Protection Directive applies to search engines that contain data of EU
> citizens* even if the servers are located physically outside the EU. *
>
> If we read this opinion bearing in mind the latest letter from Article 29
> Working Party to ICANN CEO, it looks like at some point we might  end up
> with a system where there will be a two- tier RAA when it comes to
> registrars' contractual  obligations related to data retention of
> individual registrants.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> indeed and maybe worthy to reach the European Commission GAC
>> representatives and ask them what they think now.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/7/5 David Cake <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.internetnews.me/2013/07/04/article-29-working-party-to-icann-eu-registrars-exempt-from-data-retention-requirements/
>>>  The totally predictable outcome of the over reach on data retention
>>> and validation etc in the new RAA is that EU registrars will end up being
>>> exempt due to the requirements being unlawful.
>>>  Which is pretty much what everyone has been telling ICANN since this
>>> started, and renders the entire process fairly ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>  David
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Thomas Roessler  (@roessler)