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)
Rubens
M
From:council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>On Behalf OfAyden 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.
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.