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

[Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: 	Re: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS 
Implementation Review Team (IRT)
Datum: 	Mon, 19 Dec 2016 08:51:06 +0000
Von: 	Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>
An: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Kopie (CC): 	Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@xxxxxxxxx>



Dear all,

The letter to the GNSO Council from “thick” WHOIS Implementation Review 
Team has now been posted on the GNSO Website 
here:https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts
And can be viewed directly here: 
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-15dec16-en.pdf
Kind regards

Nathalie

On 12/17/16, 4:13 PM, "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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_thick-2Dwhois-2D2016-2D06-2D27-2Den&d=DgIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=E7JnHCK21L7fCyV2BvlvPAChI8mLV1q2HKsBWw0Mg24&s=eqwJY092JQX9BqW36nri__z-fkkujg94HmNvAfd47MU&e=
   .

   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