4 ms·

Interesting that the first case deals with an injunction to comply an EU company to collect information -- not to punish a company from collecting information.

Interesting that the first case deals with an injunction to comply an EU company to collect information -- not to punish a company from collecting information. I'm actually very surprised that ICANN even tried to do this as it looks like a slam dunk defence. I'll be interested to see the result of the appeal.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
What this article may miss, is that ICANN's lawsuit isn't exactly hostile: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-25-en https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-25-en and https://www.epag.de/en/tucows-statement-on-icann-legal-action/ https://www.epag.de/en/tucows-statement-on-icann-legal-actio... The lawsuit was filed in order to get an official legal answer on the books as to how Whois data should be handled for GDPR. The easiest way to get actual precedent on the matter is to sue someone over it.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  I don't think I came to the same conclusion you did after reading those 2 articles. While you say the lawsuit "isn't exactly hostile", I think it isn't exactly "friendly" either, and it's not like ICANN is neutral and just looking to the courts for guidance. I don't think ICANN is pleased with this ruling, at all. ICANN clearly wants to preserve the requirement around personal details in Whois data, while Tucows pretty much thinks that requirement goes against the spirit of GDPR. From your second link: > ICANN’s goal, since discussions about the impact of the GDPR on domain registration began, has been to preserve as much of the status quo as possible. This has led ICANN to attempt to achieve GDPR-compliant domain registration via ‘process reduction’, as opposed to Tucows’ approach of starting with the GDPR and rebuilding from the ground up.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > ICANN clearly wants to preserve the requirement around personal details in Whois data They may just not want to get sued by the MPAA et al over facilitating copyright infringement. Without WHOIS, pursuing rogue domains gets harder.
    - guitarbill 8y ago
      We're not talking about no WHOIS, we're talking about reducing the number of WHOIS contacts, and not publishing WHOIS information for everybody to see it. Which yes, would means now you need e.g. a court order first before you'd get that information. So I guess "pursuing rogue domains gets harder" is one way to put it, or more legally correct another. For law enforcement this isn't a problem. For scummy copyright lawyers looking to make a quick buck, maybe it is. Guess which of those funds ICANN? And how exactly would not making WHOIS info public "facilitat[e] copyright infringement"? Nobody is buying it.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yes. Also: > Tucows will continue to ensure that those with legitimate purposes, including law enforcement, intellectual property, and commercial litigation interests will have access to domain registrant information. On a daily basis, we see plenty of important circumstances wherein we find sharing that information to be legally necessary, and this will not change. We collect a contact for the owner of each domain name sold on our platforms, and have the ability to contact the owner. When necessary, we also share that contact with law enforcement and others with a legitimate interest. So there's no loss of data access for those with legal right to it. It's just that there's no free public access.
- lagadu 8y ago
  > The easiest way to get actual precedent on the matter is to sue someone over it. Precedent is of little relevance in countries that use civil law (as opposed to common law like the US does) so establishing it sounds somewhat futile.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

What this article may miss, is that ICANN's lawsuit isn't exactly hostile: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-25-en https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-25-en and https://www.epag.de/en/tucows-statement-on-icann-legal-action/ https://www.epag.de/en/tucows-statement-on-icann-legal-actio... The lawsuit was filed in order to get an official legal answer on the books as to how Whois data should be handled for GDPR. The easiest way to get actual precedent on the matter is to sue someone over it.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
I don't think I came to the same conclusion you did after reading those 2 articles. While you say the lawsuit "isn't exactly hostile", I think it isn't exactly "friendly" either, and it's not like ICANN is neutral and just looking to the courts for guidance. I don't think ICANN is pleased with this ruling, at all. ICANN clearly wants to preserve the requirement around personal details in Whois data, while Tucows pretty much thinks that requirement goes against the spirit of GDPR. From your second link: > ICANN’s goal, since discussions about the impact of the GDPR on domain registration began, has been to preserve as much of the status quo as possible. This has led ICANN to attempt to achieve GDPR-compliant domain registration via ‘process reduction’, as opposed to Tucows’ approach of starting with the GDPR and rebuilding from the ground up.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > ICANN clearly wants to preserve the requirement around personal details in Whois data They may just not want to get sued by the MPAA et al over facilitating copyright infringement. Without WHOIS, pursuing rogue domains gets harder.
  - guitarbill 8y ago
    We're not talking about no WHOIS, we're talking about reducing the number of WHOIS contacts, and not publishing WHOIS information for everybody to see it. Which yes, would means now you need e.g. a court order first before you'd get that information. So I guess "pursuing rogue domains gets harder" is one way to put it, or more legally correct another. For law enforcement this isn't a problem. For scummy copyright lawyers looking to make a quick buck, maybe it is. Guess which of those funds ICANN? And how exactly would not making WHOIS info public "facilitat[e] copyright infringement"? Nobody is buying it.
mirimir 8y ago
Yes. Also: > Tucows will continue to ensure that those with legitimate purposes, including law enforcement, intellectual property, and commercial litigation interests will have access to domain registrant information. On a daily basis, we see plenty of important circumstances wherein we find sharing that information to be legally necessary, and this will not change. We collect a contact for the owner of each domain name sold on our platforms, and have the ability to contact the owner. When necessary, we also share that contact with law enforcement and others with a legitimate interest. So there's no loss of data access for those with legal right to it. It's just that there's no free public access.
lagadu 8y ago
> The easiest way to get actual precedent on the matter is to sue someone over it. Precedent is of little relevance in countries that use civil law (as opposed to common law like the US does) so establishing it sounds somewhat futile.