ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: FW: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT)
  • From: <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 09:32:03 -0700
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Workspace Webmail 6.5.9

<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; 
font-size:10pt;"><div>Thanks James. &nbsp;The IPC has its regular call 
tomorrow, so if there is any way possible to have a draft Jan 19 Council call 
agenda capturing non-motion items like this, that would be supremely helpful. 
&nbsp;Otherwise, i'm afraid that many of the topics that end up on the agenda 
for discussion will be slowed down by "I have to get back to you" wince we 
won't have another IPC call between now and 
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid 
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; 
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: FW: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS<br>
Implementation Review Team (IRT)<br>
From: "James M. Bladel" &lt;<a 
Date: Sun, January 08, 2017 10:56 am<br>
To: GNSO Council List &lt;<a 
Councilors – <br>
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.<br>
Thank you,<br>
On 12/17/16, 09:13, "<a 
href="mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a> on 
behalf of Amr Elsadr" &lt;<a 
href="mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a> on 
behalf of <a href="mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx";>aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt; 
    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:<br>
    &gt; "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.”<br>
    In June, 2015, ICANN’s Legal Dept. submitted a memo in follow up of the 
above recommendation, which can be found on this page: <a 
    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.<br>


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