On 31 May 2018, at 07:10, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote:
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 <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> is the admin contact of example.com <http://example.com/>; registrar sends e-mails to rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> to confirm consent) Rubens
M
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 10:19 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Files Legal Action in Germany to Preserve WHOIS Data
An update; the Court has rejected ICANN's request for an injunction.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en>
-Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 26 May 2018 2:26 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com <mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> wrote:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-25-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-25-en>
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.
—Ayden
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council