January 2018 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Business Constituency (BC) comment on proposed interim Whois models for GDPR compliance
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 29, 2018

Jan. 29, 2018

The Business Constituency (BC) submits the attached comment on ICANN’s proposed models for Whois compliance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Note that on 18-Jan-2018 the BC submitted questions seeking clarification on process issues for GDPR model development and selection. See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-questions-bc-compliance-mo… The BC looks forward to ICANN’s response to our questions and to ICANN’s rationale for interim model(s) selected. Sincerely, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Request to ICANN re Extension of GDPR Compliance Models Public Comment Period
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 29, 2018

Jan. 29, 2018

ICANN will not extend the comment deadline on GDPR-compliant Whois models (see below). Thankfully we anticipated this reply, and will finalize and submit our comment on the models later today. Please see the other list thread for final comment resolution. From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 5:35 PM To: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law> Cc: Goran Marby <goran.marby(a)icann.org>, Cassia Oliveira <cassia.oliveira(a)icann.org>, Steven DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Subject: [Ext] Request to ICANN re Extension of GDPR Compliance Models Public Comment Period Dear Brian, Thank you for the notes requesting an extension. As you may be aware, we are receiving significant input from a wide range of stakeholders over the past days, a full list can be found at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdpr-legal-analysis-2017-11-17-en and we are updating this continuously. In checking on submissions, I noticed that the IPC has also submitted comments today, which are much appreciated. With regards to an extension, unfortunately, we are unable to provide an extension. We would encourage you to provide any additional input as soon as possible, and would welcome to hear from you how you’d like to proceed as feedback is important. By the way, I noticed that your note below did not go to GDPR(a)ICANN.org<mailto:GDPR@ICANN.org>. If you wish it to be posted, let us know and we can send it to that address for posting. We look forward to seeing you and everyone in Los Angles later this week. Kind regards, Theresa From: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law> Date: Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 12:20 To: Goran Marby <goran.marby(a)icann.org> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Subject: [Ext] Request to ICANN re Extension of GDPR Compliance Models Public Comment Period January 28, 2018 Dear Goran: The Business Constituency (BC) and Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) respectfully request that ICANN Org extend the community input period on the ICANN-Proposed GDPR Compliance Models, which is currently set to close on January 29, 2018. We request an additional two weeks, with a new comment deadline of February 12, 2018, to provide additional opportunity for the community to provide input and to bring the public comment period into conformity with the standard 40-day comment period that ICANN generally employs. This complex issue requires careful, dutiful consideration by all affected community members and stakeholders, including global business owners that expect to see significant impact from the adoption of an interim GDPR compliance model in terms of the accessibility of WHOIS data. In addition, we received confirmation on January 24, 2018 from you and John Jeffrey that we could use this comment period to provide input relating to the five community-proposed models, in addition to the three ICANN-proposed models, which was not made clear in the original call for community input issued on January 12, 2018. As a result, we believe additional time is warranted and necessary to integrate our thoughts about all eight models and ensure our input is as comprehensive and useful as possible. We note from your blog published on January 25, 2018 that you acknowledge the need to provide for further opportunities to solicit community understanding and feedback, and we welcome the opportunity to participate in the webinar scheduled for February 2, 2018 to solicit additional community views on this topic. (https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-status-of-mo…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…>) We would respectfully point out that the public comment opportunity should extend past the date of the scheduled webinar for community input, and that ICANN should further extend their consideration period to late February. Thank you for your quick acknowledgement and consideration of this request. Sincerely, Business Constituency Intellectual Property Constituency

1 0

FILED: Request to ICANN re Extension of GDPR Compliance Models Public Comment Period
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 28, 2018

Jan. 28, 2018

January 28, 2018 Dear Goran: The Business Constituency (BC) and Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) respectfully request that ICANN Org extend the community input period on the ICANN-Proposed GDPR Compliance Models, which is currently set to close on January 29, 2018. We request an additional two weeks, with a new comment deadline of February 12, 2018, to provide additional opportunity for the community to provide input and to bring the public comment period into conformity with the standard 40-day comment period that ICANN generally employs. This complex issue requires careful, dutiful consideration by all affected community members and stakeholders, including global business owners that expect to see significant impact from the adoption of an interim GDPR compliance model in terms of the accessibility of WHOIS data. In addition, we received confirmation on January 24, 2018 from you and John Jeffrey that we could use this comment period to provide input relating to the five community-proposed models, in addition to the three ICANN-proposed models, which was not made clear in the original call for community input issued on January 12, 2018. As a result, we believe additional time is warranted and necessary to integrate our thoughts about all eight models and ensure our input is as comprehensive and useful as possible. We note from your blog published on January 25, 2018 that you acknowledge the need to provide for further opportunities to solicit community understanding and feedback, and we welcome the opportunity to participate in the webinar scheduled for February 2, 2018 to solicit additional community views on this topic. (https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-status-of-mo…) We would respectfully point out that the public comment opportunity should extend past the date of the scheduled webinar for community input, and that ICANN should further extend their consideration period to late February. Thank you for your quick acknowledgement and consideration of this request. Sincerely, Business Constituency Intellectual Property Constituency

1 0

Slides and New Adobe Room for Whois-GDPR discussion
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 24, 2018

Jan. 24, 2018

The slides for this discussion are available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12hF4AR64wnBR04Td0CzotO88mBaJY9cx/view?usp=… From: Steven DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 9:41 AM To: BC List <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: New Adobe Room for Whois-GDPR discussion You can re-join the discussion on the new, High-Capacity Adobe Room at Https://participate.icann.org/strategicinit-webinar/<https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fparticipate.icann.org%2Fstrate…> — Steve DelBianco President & CEO NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

1 0

New Adobe Room for Whois-GDPR discussion
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 24, 2018

Jan. 24, 2018

You can re-join the discussion on the new, High-Capacity Adobe Room at Https://participate.icann.org/strategicinit-webinar/<https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fparticipate.icann.org%2Fstrate…> — Steve DelBianco President & CEO NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

1 0

Conversation on Access to WHOIS and Compliance with EU’s GDPR and ICANN Contracts
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 22, 2018

Jan. 22, 2018

If you plan to attend in-person in Washington or Brussels, or use Adobe Connect, RSVP at https://surveys.concep.com/s/2011f22192e9e9ed1a7345a963ba220c354eca9f/h=ff0… Adobe Connect (AC) Room Call Details AC Room Link - https://participate.icann.org/strategicinit/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__participate.icann.org_…> Main Number - 1-605-475-5618 (US Toll) Participant Code – 5312003584 For additional national/international access numbers: https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=5312003584&num=1-605-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.myrcplus.com_cnums…>

1 0

Join a 24-Jan Conversation on Compliance with EU's GDPR and ICANN Contracts
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

1 0

POSTED: Process questions from the Business Constituency (BC), regarding model for GDPR compliance
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 18, 2018

Jan. 18, 2018

As discussed on today’s BC call, we submitted 4 process questions to ICANN today, regarding the proposed models for GDPR compliance. (see attached and below) Thanks to volunteers who quickly drafted these questions: Margie Milam, Mary Ellen Callahan, Alex Deacon, Tim Chen, and Faisal Shah. We will also be drafting comments on the models before 29-Jan, and these will be circulated for BC member review. Date: Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 6:09 PM To: "gdpr(a)icann.org" <gdpr(a)icann.org> Subject: Process questions from the Business Constituency (BC), regarding model for GDPR compliance The BC appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on ICANN’s proposed models for compliance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). We thank the community for the immense efforts in responding to ICANN’s call for Community-Proposed Models for GDPR Compliance and ICANN org for this opportunity to submit comment and begin a more robust discussion on this important topic. Our feedback will be divided into two discrete areas: First, procedural questions, to be followed by a separate submission regarding substantive observations and comments on ICANN’s proposed models. The BC would appreciate ICANN org’s detailed replies to these questions, which will help clarify our understanding of how ICANN arrived at these proposals<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-models-gdpr-compliance-…> and enable and inform more precise feedback from us: 1. In publishing its ICANN-Proposed Compliance Models for Community Discussion<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-models-gdpr-compliance-…>, ICANN org states:  “We are seeking your input on the proposals. From that input either variations or modifications to one of these models will be identified at the end of January for the path forward. To ensure we reach this goal, we need your feedback by 29 January 2018.” From this, it is unclear whether the ICANN community is meant to provide feedback to ICANN’s three models only, or also to the additional five community-proposed models for GDPR compliance. The BC would like additional clarity on whether there will be any evaluation of the five community-proposed models through this current process. If not, will these be reviewed and considered by both ICANN and the community? 2. Contrary to stated ICANN processes and procedures ICANN org has opened a short window of time for comments (17 days), and comments don’t appear to be publicly displayed. Will ICANN both extend the comment deadline and make comments publicly accessible?   3. As ICANN org states, “one of these models will be identified at the end of January for the path forward.” Comments are due January 29, so is ICANN assuming it will take only 2 days to thoroughly consider community input before it makes a final decision?  4. In describing the approach for developing its proposed interim compliance model, ICANN org states that:  “[t]he selected model will not replace the multistakeholder policy development and implementation activities that are underway, including ... updates to ICANN’s Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law …” The BC requests additional clarification on what development and/or implementation activities are underway for this cited policy. And, more importantly, we request an explanation as to why no part of this policy has been followed by ICANN to-date in addressing compliance with the GDPR. The BC looks forward to your prompt response on our questions, preferably in advance of the January 29th deadline for comments on the proposed models. Sincerely, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on New Sections of CCTRT Recommendations
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 15, 2018

Jan. 15, 2018

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) submits the attached comment on new sections in the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCTRT) Recommendations. ( ICANN comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-recs-2017-11-27-en ) This comment was drafted by Marie Pattullo, Steve DelBianco, Denise Michel, and Chris Wilson. It was approved in accord with the BC Charter. — Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on Hamilton memo regarding GDPR, as of 15-Jan-2018
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 15, 2018

Jan. 15, 2018

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) submits the attached comment on the Hamilton legal analysis memo regarding GDPR, as of 15-Jan-2018. We expect to comment further on compliance models recently posted. ( See ICANN’s Legal Analyses, Proposed Compliance Models, & Community Feedback page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdpr-legal-analysis-2017-11-17-en ) This comment was drafted by Margie Milam and Tim Chen. It was approved in accord with the BC Charter. — Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0