I’d agree with the first part
The second part should be left up to the registrar as to how they want to implement it including any warnings.
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
Date: Thursday 31 May 2018 at 11:29
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Files Legal Action in Germany to Preserve WHOIS Data
Thanks Ayden – so no further forward. (An unfortunate reference to the artist formally known at WP29 though).
Anyone have any insights on next steps?
- Replace "MUST collect admin-c/tech-c" with "MAY collect" in the temp spec.
- Add an admin-c/tech-c consent mechanism that could read like this "If registrar offer to collect admin-c/tech-c information, consent MUST be sought from the data subjects to processing of PII" (example: registrant says that
rubensk@nic.br is the admin contact of
example.com; registrar sends e-mails to rubensk@nic.br to confirm consent)
An update; the Court has rejected ICANN's request for an injunction.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
There is a definite information asymmetry between the GNSO Council and ICANN org at the moment. This was not a spontaneous decision; it has clearly been in the works for
weeks. I don't see how we can even contemplate launching an ePDP when we are not aware of all the actions that ICANN is up to behind the scenes vis-à-vis WHOIS.
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council