ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

FW: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT)

  • To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: FW: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT)
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:56:02 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=HZm8s3mjvboJ87bpg/XeXH5lMnoS0l4MfNDoxlW1eCA=; b=NqGh2WS+ivj+RRRbZXBVMCBWHigSqey5LsimgxGVQvAICok+n9YMoIgs8Vkg+9irgVJmFsG4hjf2uaJTxvD+zvLhGqvO6XytWwU+HZXv6R+VdGS/s9rmfvcFV1d+rFV4f0IfAMgzQvHWJRqwhpYgVPwjXhK5M2D2Pny7unghxwA=
  • In-reply-to: <465E068D-5CF2-4B32-8B7A-11FC48BBC44F@egyptig.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <465E068D-5CF2-4B32-8B7A-11FC48BBC44F@egyptig.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
  • Thread-index: AQHSWHefdF8P3Ue6Pke2fpC+WveNAaEum22A
  • Thread-topic: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT)
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1d.0.161209

Councilors – 

Please see the note from Amr (below) and the letter from the “thick WHOIS” IRT 
(attached), outlining some challenges associated with the implementation of 
this GNSO Policy and changes to national privacy laws.  I propose that we add 
this topic, and potential next steps,  as a discussion item for our next call 
on 19 JAN.

Thank you,


On 12/17/16, 09:13, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Amr Elsadr" 
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    The “thick” WHOIS IRT has asked me to forward a letter (attached) sent on 
its behalf to the GNSO Council. If folks recall, the “thick” WHOIS Consensus 
Policy recommendations included this:
    > "As part of the implementation process a legal review of law applicable 
to the transition of data from a thin to thick model that has not already been 
considered in the EWG memo is undertaken and due consideration is given to 
potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the transition 
from thin to thick Whois, including, for example, guidance on how the 
long-standing contractual requirement that registrars give notice to, and 
obtain consent, from each registrant for uses of any personally identifiable 
data submitted by the registrant should apply to registrations involved in the 
transition. Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions 
that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy 
consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO 
Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken.”
    In June, 2015, ICANN’s Legal Dept. submitted a memo in follow up of the 
above recommendation, which can be found on this page: 
    The IRT believes that the privacy/data protection law environment has 
changed since the production of the legal memo by ICANN Legal. Although the IRT 
has not reached any consensus on recommending further policy work as a result 
of its findings, there is agreement that the shifting privacy/data protection 
environment may complicate the transition from “thin” to “thick” WHOIS for some 
contracted parties. This letter is meant to brief the Council on the IRT’s work 
in that regard.

Attachment: IRT to GNSO Council on Privacy 20161215.docx
Description: IRT to GNSO Council on Privacy 20161215.docx

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>