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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Paul.

I’m chatting with Marika now, and we hope to finalize the 19 JAN agenda today.

J.


From: "policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:32
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)

Thanks James.  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.  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 
then.

Best,
Paul


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FW: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS
Implementation Review Team (IRT)
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sun, January 08, 2017 10:56 am
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

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,

J.


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

Hi,

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: 
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-27-en.

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.

Thanks.

Amr