Last Friday I circulated a proposed BC & IPC joint letter to ICANN regarding its anticipated draft interim model to achieve GDPR compliance for Whois. No BC members registered any objections or edits as of 17UTC Monday, so we agreed to the joint letter. Then late on Monday, IPC members added a section regarding self-certification/accreditation. The IPC wanted to submit the letter at 17 UTC today, and I felt there was not sufficient time to allow BC members to review that specific section. Therefore, that section is attributed only to the IPC, as noted below. Otherwise, the attached document is joint input of both the IPC and BC. That said, the section on self-certification (plus) has much merit and should be reviewed by BC members this week. See pages 5-6 in the attached letter --Steve From: Brian Winterfeldt Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:01 PM To: 'goran.marby@icann.org' <goran.marby@icann.org<mailto:goran.marby@icann.org>>; 'akram.atallah@icann.org' <akram.atallah@icann.org<mailto:akram.atallah@icann.org>>; 'john.jeffrey@icann.org' <john.jeffrey@icann.org<mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] Update re IPC/BC Representative Discussions with Contracted Party Representatives and Forthcoming Input to ICANN Dear Göran, Akram, and John, Attached please find a joint IPC/BC document that provides input on key issues and concerns with the proposed ICANN interim compliance model based on our prior discussions of this model. To briefly summarize, this document highlights the following model elements / issues where we believe the IPC and BC views diverge from what is currently presented (or omitted) in the ICANN model: 1. Territorial scope 2. Scope of application to natural vs. legal persons 3. Non-publication of Registrant email address 4. Self-certification/accreditation issues 5. Data accuracy 6. Bulk / aggregated data access Each section provides our specific comments as well as citations and links to prior input which we believe ICANN should note in connection with our stated views. As you will recall, we had offered to provide this kind of input when we spoke on Friday February 16, 2018. We note that the IPC and BC membership raised no objections to the content of the document. However, we note that the section on self-certification/accreditation was added pursuant to IPC members’ suggestions, and there was not sufficient time to obtain formal BC endorsement of that specific section after re-circulating the updated draft last night. Therefore, that section specifically should be attributed only to the IPC. Otherwise, the document should be considered joint input of both the IPC and BC. As previously mentioned, we understand that ICANN anticipates formally publishing its draft interim compliance model shortly. We hope ICANN will review and consider the attached input prior to publication. Of course, this document should serve as input in further refining the model in any case, and we will anticipate providing any further input once the draft model is formally published. Best regards, Brian ________________________________ <https://www.winterfeldt.law/>[https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/><https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian@winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 On Feb 23, 2018, at 14:15, Brian Winterfeldt <Brian@Winterfeldt.law<mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law>> wrote: Dear Göran, Akram, and John: As you all know, certain members of the IPC and the BC met with certain members of the Contracted Parties House on Wednesday, February 21, 2018, to discuss the ongoing development of an interim GDPR compliance model. I wanted to let you know that the participants in that meeting are working together to prepare a written “communiqué” that summarizes some of the key takeaways from that discussion, which we hope to share with ICANN by close of business on Monday February 26, 2018. Separately, the IPC and BC are preparing a joint letter to ICANN, which will include some initial input regarding the ICANN proposed interim model, which we have been discussing in our constituencies since our call with you last Friday February 16, and of course was a key focus of our IPC/BC webinar on Thursday February 22 (thanks again to Akram and John for participating in that discussion). We also hope to share this document with ICANN by close of business on Monday. Our hope is that these documents will be received and considered prior to publication of the ICANN proposed interim compliance model, which we understand is expected sometime early next week. Of course, we expect to provide additional input following publication of the proposed model, but wanted you to consider the specific materials mentioned above before ICANN publishes the model, if at all possible. We understand that the timeline for input is short, and we appreciate your efforts to allow us this brief window to provide some important pre-publication feedback based on what we know so far about the proposed model and the community discussions we have held in response, at your request. Best regards, Brian ________________________________ <image003.png>[winterfeldt.law]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d=...> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian@winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422