Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> One of the 5 testbed Registrars raised the problem that EU policy prevented
> confidential business data to be exported to the US, and proposed a trusted
> third party in Europe, at least for data belonging to European Registrars.

My understanding is that, at least for personal data, European privacy law
makes it illegal to export data to a country without adequate (by European
legal definition) privacy measures in place. For example, a European branch
of a US-based bank cannot legally send such data to a US head office.

Last I heard, the US had proposed a 'compromise' involving some 'safe harbour'
provisions and Europe had rejected it. Is my information out of date?

And does any of that apply to corporate data? 

> The proposal was vetoed: escrow data had to reside in the US.

> Since nobody (neither ICANN nor the Registrars) had any intention to let
> this high-visibility operation sink due to this "detail", the question was
> "forgotten".

> Obviously, if somebody wants ro re-vamp the issue, the problem will still
> remain: EU will oppose any attempt to keep escrow data of European companies
> (Registries or Registrars) outside Europe, and USG will attempt to force
> ICANN to have them in the US, and we will very likely stall again.

There was an escrow committee which generated recommendations. How did
they handle this problem?
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html