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

FYI: Request for Adequate Assurances Relating to WHOIS and GDPR
by Steve DelBianco 26 Mar '18

26 Mar '18

Just an FYI on a letter sent to ICANN yesterday from Jonathan Matkowsky of RiskIQ. He requests “adequate assurances” that “consistent with its Mission, its Bylaws, applicable law and GAC Advice, WHOIS data remains available to us” --S ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky(a)riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Date: Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:39 PM Subject: Request for Adequate Assurances Relating to WHOIS and GDPR To: goran.marby(a)icann.org<mailto:goran.marby@icann.org>, cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org<mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org> Cc: gdpr(a)icann.org<mailto:gdpr@icann.org>, cathrin.bauer-bulst(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:cathrin.bauer-bulst@ec.europa.eu>, lkapin(a)ftc.gov<mailto:lkapin@ftc.gov>, didp(a)icann.org<mailto:didp@icann.org> Please see attached. Thank you. RiskIQ, Inc. Jonathan Matkowsky, VP - IP & Brand Security

1 0

GAC Communicque from ICANN61 - San Juan
by Steve DelBianco 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

The GAC Communique from ICANN61 is here<https://gac.icann.org/advice/communiques/public/20180315_icann61%20gac%20co…>. Below are excerpts of “GAC consensus advice” on issues of high interest to the BC . Regarding GDPR: The GAC reiterates its previous advice, including the Abu Dhabi Communiqué, to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the current structure of the WHOIS, while ensuring full and timely compliance with GDPR. The GAC does not envision an operational role in designing and implementing the proposed accreditation programs but reiterates its willingness to advise the Board and engage with ICANN Org and the community on the development of codes of conduct from a public policy perspective. The GAC notes the opportunity for individual governments, if they wish to do so, to provide information to ICANN on governmental users to ensure continued access to WHOIS. Regarding the proposed draft interim model, consistent with the GAC’s comments to ICANN filed on March 8, 2018, a. the GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct the ICANN Organization to: i. Ensure that the proposed interim model maintains current WHOIS requirements to the fullest extent possible; ii. Provide a detailed rationale for the choices made in the interim model, explaining their necessity and proportionality in relation to the legitimate purposes identified; iii. In particular, reconsider the proposal to hide the registrant email address as this may not be proportionate in view of the significant negative impact on law enforcement, cybersecurity and rights protection; iv. Distinguish between legal and natural persons, allowing for public access to WHOIS data of legal entities, which are not in the remit of the GDPR; v. Ensure continued access to the WHOIS, including non-public data, for users with a legitimate purpose, until the time when the interim WHOIS model is fully operational, on a mandatory basis for all contracted parties; vi. Ensure that limitations in terms of query volume envisaged under an accreditation program balance realistic investigatory cross- referencing needs; and vii. Ensure confidentiality of WHOIS queries by law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, b. the GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct the ICANN Organization to: i. Complete the interim model as swiftly as possible, taking into account the advice above. Once the model is finalized, the GAC will complement ICANN’s outreach to the Article 29 Working Party, inviting them to provide their views; ii. Consider the use of Temporary Policies and/or Special Amendments to ICANN’s standard Registry and Registrar contracts to mandate implementation of an interim model and a temporary access mechanism; and iii. Assist in informing other national governments not represented in the GAC of the opportunity for individual governments, if they wish to do so, to provide information to ICANN on governmental users to ensure continued access to WHOIS Rationale includes: ICANN’s new interim proposal suggests significant changes to the WHOIS system, including masking several categories of previously public information. Regarding .AMAZON: The GAC received an update from several of its members regarding the proposal submitted by Amazon.com at ICANN 60. The GAC understands that member governments of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) have established a process for analyzing the proposal, and that this analysis is progressing. The GAC was informed that Amazon.com and Board members have made themselves available to assist if requested. The GAC considered Board Resolutions 2017.10.29.02 and 2017.10.29.03. The GAC decided, in a spirit of good cooperation, to reply to the Board’s request for any additional information the GAC wishes to provide regarding the .amazon case. The GAC’s letter to the Board is attached to this Communique.

1 0

Accreditation & Access Model For Non-Public Whois Data
by Steve DelBianco 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

To make it easier for people to share, we put the Access & Accreditation Model (1.1) on our BizConst.org website. The link is BizConst.org/Accreditation http://www.bizconst.org/accreditation

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on ICANN's proposed FY19 budget
by Steve DelBianco 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

Attached are the comments of the ICANN Business Constituency (BC), regarding ICANN’s proposed FY19 Budget. These comments were approved in accord with the BC Charter. Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency<http://bizconst.org/> From: Planning <planning(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, March 9, 2018 at 10:18 AM To: Steven DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Cc: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, Shani Quidwai <shani.quidwai(a)icann.org>, Planning <planning(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: Business Constituency (BC) comment on FY19 budget Steve: We received your email requesting an extension for the due date for public comments from the BC. In response, we have the following comments: * We need to maintain fairness to the other commenters when considering an extension of the due date of a public comment period to any single organization. * Without trying to break the rules, but trying to be creative, if comments are received later than the closing of the public comment period (8th of March), we will try to address them, and we will put them on record of having been received but late. Thanks. Sincerely, Becky Nash, VP Finance Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Telephone Direct: (310) 301-3864 Mobile: (310) 745-2413 From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 1:54 PM To: Planning <planning(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Business Constituency (BC) comment on FY19 budget Becky, The BC has developed a draft comment on the FY19 budget, but our members are in-transit to San Juan, so we won’t finalize until Sunday 11-March. Would you be able to accept our comment on that date?

1 0

FILED: Joint BC/IPC letter to ICANN regarding ICANN Proposed Interim Compliance Model for GDPR
by Steve DelBianco 10 Mar '18

10 Mar '18

Thanks to BC members for your expedited review of the joint IPC-BC letter on concerns with ICANN’s Proposed Interim Compliance Model for GDPR. The attached letter was posted to ICANN on Friday 9-Mar, via email to ICANN executives and to GDPR(a)ICANN.org<mailto:GDPR@ICANN.org>

1 0

latest Goran Marby blog on ICANN's Proposed Interim Model for GDPR and Whois
by Steve DelBianco 07 Mar '18

07 Mar '18

The most recent blog from Göran has been published<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-issues-update-discu…>. (also shown below) As we prepare to depart to San Juan for the ICANN61 meeting, I wanted to provide you with the latest update on our efforts related to compliance with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection_en>. There have been a number of webinars and calls organized by various constituencies in the last few days, in which ICANN org colleagues and I have participated, giving us a chance to further exchange views as we refine the proposed model. On 2 March, we had a useful discussion with the Article 29 Working Party regarding our recent publication<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-seeking-inpu…> of a Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance. During that conversation, we summarized the elements of our Proposed Interim Model and shared the valuable feedback we have received from community members, including where viewpoints on the proposed interim models have diverged. In addition, we emphasized the importance of a common approach for the organization together with the registries and registrars. The Article 29 representatives noted the progress we have made in developing a plan of action to comply with the regulation, and expressed their willingness to review the Proposed Interim Model in more detail, particularly regarding the purposes for the collection and publication of data, the data retention period, data processing agreements, and the justifications surrounding access to full registration data for accredited users. We are also looking forward to a deeper exchange with the Article 29 Working Party later in March on the rationale for the interim model. The data protection authorities will continue their internal coordination through March, taking into account further details coming from ICANN on the final model, and we plan to touch base with them then, and into April when the Art 29 WP holds its next plenary meeting. We hope that they will be able to publish feedback. In the meantime, I am looking forward to continuing this discussion with you at the San Juan meeting<https://61.schedule.icann.org/>, either in person or via remote participation.

1 0

ICANN publishes its Proposed Interim Model for GDPR and Whois
by Steve DelBianco 01 Mar '18

01 Mar '18

See 28-Feb post from Goran Marby here<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-seeking-inpu…>, including the anticipated “proposed interim model” here<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-interim-model-gdpr-com…>. Let’s discuss on today’s BC call

1 0