Hello Wolfgang,

Thanks for the clarification and interesting comments. I looks like I
missed the fact that the article I read in Domain Incite about the EU rep´s
comment is from October 2012 as you point out. When I thought, mistakenly,
that it was more recent and the comment was a reference to the latest
letter (06 June 2013)  from Article 29 WP about data retention and the RAA.
My apologies.

You are right, of course the letter reflects binding  EU legislation.

Best,

Marie-laure

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Marie-Laure,
>
> it was not "he" it was "she", it was Linda´s first GAC meeting in Toronto.
> And the statement was not a statement to the ICANN Board, it was the reply
> to a rather tricky question by Suzan from the US DOC in an open GAC meeting
> with the Board. It was not an official statement by the European
> Commission. And fact is, that the Article 29 WG letter wass based on the
> existing European legislation. With other words, The letter represented not
> "just on opinion by an advisory group" but it reflected binding legislation
> in the EU member states (wich is relevant for registrars, ISPs, ccTLD
> registires and other units which operate within the EU or offer services to
> citizens with an EU passprt).
>
> Yes, you are right, at the end we could see the emergence of a mixed
> system which invites registrants and Internet users to go to the ISP,
> Registrars, Search Engine etc. which meets best his/her expectations. This
> was one reason why US based Registrars opposed it rather strongly. They
> feared that Euripean registrars will get a competetive advantage.
>
> What I see in the future (also taking into account the follow up of the
> PRISM/FISA discussion) is that privacy becomes a new business feature which
> will have certainly consequences for competition. In the 1980s, ecology and
> economy were seen as contradictons. Ecology is too expensive and untermines
> the economy, was the position of many companies and governments. Today
> ecology is seen as a business opportunity. We could have a similar
> development in the discussion around privacy. Privacy could become a
> business opportunity. Thatswhy it is important that ICANN offers some
> flexibility in the new RA & RAAs not to block future developments.
>
> best
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von marie-laure Lemineur
> Gesendet: So 07.07.2013 05:18
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Article 29 Working Group says EU Registrars
> exempt from data retention in new RAA
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>