[Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Borad Elections

[John Walu]

@ Owen

Interesting insights.

True GDPR is EU person-specific rather than EU Citizen specific. U also
rightly point out this is a broader term compared to the narrow citizen
specific term I had imagined.  Dont you then think that this expands the
risk exposure rather than limit it?

Either way, what of the AfriNIC data related to resource members who happen
to be both African and European (and you and I know many of them ;-)  Does
their data held in AfriNIC databases then fall under GDPR?

Anyway, the best thing for the Board to do is to carry out a GDPR Impact
Assessment and share the report with the community about the risks or
otherwise of GDPR in their processes/systems.

rgds.

walu





On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 3:52 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:


>

>

> On Jul 10, 2019, at 00:51 , John Walu <walu.john at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> @ Owen

>

> GDPR territorial scope extends beyond Europe since its is EU citizen

> specific rather than geo-specific.

>

> https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/

>

>

> Nope… It’s EU PERSON specific, not EU citizen.

>

> EU Person has a rather odd definition, but it is a superset of EU citizens

> (or more accurately citizens of member nations).

>

> However…

>

> GDPR only pertains in so far as the data processing is related to:

>

>

>

>    - the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment

>    of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or

>    - the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes

>    place within the Union.

>

>

> Since AfriNIC specifically doesn’t offer services in the EU, and doesn’t

> monitor the behavior of anyone to the best of my knowledge, the

> applicability is suspect at best.

>

> In other words, anyone (Data controller/processor) handling EU citizen

> data is automatically subject to the GDPR in the event of a data breach -

> irrespective of their geo-locality.

>

>

> You also seem to have missed this part:

>

>

>

>    1. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a

>    controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State

>    law applies by virtue of public international law.

>

> While the fact that Mauritius stupidly (IMHO) signed an agreement making

> this paragraph problematic, many other nations in Africa have not and so

> it’s again questionable whether the law can be applied to entities outside

> of AfriNIC that are in countries that haven’t agreed to partake in this

> particular brand of European overreach. (Which I admit is a trick they

> unfortunately learned from the gestapo tactics of the US banking

> regulators).

> Note also that in Article 2 we have this:

>

>

>

>    1. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:

>       1. in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of

>       Union law;

>

> I’m pretty sure that AfriNIC’s issuing of IP addresses is not in any way

> governed by EU law. As such, the activity in question is, by my reading,

> exempt.

>

>  Ofcourse the main issue will be if the affected EU citizen will actually

> file a complaint in the EU Courts or not.  The second issue is whether the

> EU courts will find the data controller guilty and if the fined/penalized

> entity will to pay up or ignore given their remoteness to EU centers of

> power. (nb:Facebook and Google have so far been paying up ;-)

>

>

> To the best of my knowledge, few, if any, of the people likely to be in

> the AfriNIC whois database would be EU persons since AfriNIC specifically

> requires the businesses they interact with to be in the AfriNIC service

> region. Is there a country in Africa that joined the EU without my noticing?

>

>

> Is AfriNIC bound by GDPR?

>

> The simple answer is -  it depends.

> Do Afrinic processes and systems at any one point collect, store or

> process data that contains EU citizens?

>

> This is not the only criteria… Also it should be noted that the actual

> term is “EU persons” and not “EU citizens”.

>

> Further, it only applies to EU Persons when conducting activities which

> fall within the scope of EU law. (see Article 2 reference above).

>

> From Lexology.com (an article by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP): (

> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0dc9663d-ac3b-438e-adcd-1415a45f99ca

> )

>

> At its core, the GDPR enumerates rights of natural persons who are present

> within the European Union (EU), whether or not their data is in fact in the

> EU. The word “citizen” does not appear in the language of the regulation,

> which would indicate a reluctance to simply identify rights of EU citizens

> as opposed to the rights of all people within the boundaries of the EU.

> Practically speaking, the GDPR protects the rights of anyone within its

> territorial reach while at the same time applying to any entity[2]

> <https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/the-edata-guide-to-gdpr-whose-data-is-protected-under-the-gdpr> using

> or accessing this personal data, no matter where the data exists. Trying to

> decipher what this means can be confusing without a more thorough analysis

> of the regulation and its accompanying commentary.

>

> ——

>

>

> If the answer is NO. Then they are not bound by GDPR.

> If the answer is YES. Then they are potentially bound by GDPR to the

> extent that if that data is abused/breached, then they potentially face

> sanctions/penalties from EU courts.

>

>

> If the answer is YES, then there are more questions that need to be asked…

>

> 1. Is the person actually in the EU at the time the personal data is

> provided?

> 2. Is the person otherwise classified as an “EU Person”?

>

> If the answer to either is YES, then there are more questions that need to

> be asked… If both are NO, then you’re done, no GDPR for you.

>

> 1. Is the activity in question subject to EU legal jurisdiction?

>

> If you can answer NO to this (and I can’t think of an activity where

> AfriNIC would be collecting PII and answer yes), then again, you’re done,

> GDPR doesn’t apply.

>

> Either way, Mauritius has one of the most comprehensive Data Protection

> legislation on the continent

> <http://dataprotection.govmu.org/English/Legislation/Pages/default.aspx>

> and any data breach can actually be litigated locally (without the need for

> GDPR) with penalties to AfriNIC (if for example it is determined that email

> targets/addresses were harvested from Afrinic digital resources without

> consent from the data subjects).

>

>

> I’ll leave the discussion of Mauritian law to those people who may be

> subject to it. I’m sure AfriNIC staff and applicable legal counsel can

> adequately address this.

>

> Owen

>

>

> walu.

>

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 8:04 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> > On Jul 5, 2019, at 14:13 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss <

>> community-discuss at afrinic.net> wrote:

>> >

>> > Hi Alan,

>> >

>> > If the board can't investigate that, we may have a problem, because

>> Afrinic has to comply with GDPR.

>>

>> Why? AfriNIC is not located in the EU and does not solicit business with

>> EU persons.

>>

>> AfriNIC is not, by my reading, subject to the GDPR.

>>

>> Even if they were, AfriNIC did not violate GDPR here. Wafa might have,

>> but I don’t think she is subject to GDPR, either. Last I looked, Tunisia

>> was outside EU jurisdiction.

>>

>>

>> > I don't know if those emails come from whois or something else, but

>> some logs may tell.

>>

>> Why is this relevant?

>>

>> > I my opinion it will be nicer to get a response from Wafa, and I'm sure

>> the community will be happy to forgive her. My intent is not to punish

>> anyone, just to make sure that we find solutions to possible problems and

>> mistakes and avoid repeating them.

>>

>> I have no issue with the use of the email addresses. I think the far more

>> important issue here is the message sent under color of authority which

>> authority likely was not authorized to Wafa at the time.

>>

>> Owen

>>

>> >

>> > Regards,

>> > Jordi

>> > @jordipalet

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > El 5/7/19 10:16, "Alan Barrett" <alan.barrett at afrinic.net> escribió:

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >> On 3 Jul 2019, at 15:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss <

>> community-discuss at afrinic.net> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> I’m angrier about this as much as I think on it again.

>> >>

>> >> Can the board and the staff investigate this?

>> >>

>> >> Can all the people that got those emails confirm if they have provided

>> voluntarily their emails or if they have participated in Afrinic lists, or

>> if those emails are part of their Afrinic contacts, in order to understand

>> if this personal data (emails are personal data), have been collected from

>> Afrinic internal databases.

>> >

>> >    There is no reasonable way for AFRINIC staff to investigate whether

>> the recipients had agreed to receive the messages sent by Wafa Dahmani.

>> There is also no reasonable way for staff to investigate whether email

>> addresses were collected from the public WHOIS database.  There is no

>> non-public AFRINIC database that could have been used.

>> >

>> >    Regards,

>> >    Alan Barrett

>> >

>> >

>> >    _______________________________________________

>> >    Community-Discuss mailing list

>> >    Community-Discuss at afrinic.net

>> >    https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > **********************************************

>> > IPv4 is over

>> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?

>> > http://www.theipv6company.com

>> > The IPv6 Company

>> >

>> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or

>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of

>> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized

>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this

>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly

>> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the

>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or

>> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including

>> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal

>> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this

>> communication and delete it.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > _______________________________________________

>> > Community-Discuss mailing list

>> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net

>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Community-Discuss mailing list

>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

>>

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20190712/9955f9d4/attachment.html>